Skip to main content

Full text of "Classical philology"

See other formats 


Google 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world’s books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. 


Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 


Usage guidelines 
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 


public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 


We also ask that you: 


+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individual 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 


and we request that you use these files for 


+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 


+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 


+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 


About Google Book Search 


Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 
ai[http: //books . google. com/| 


6 \ A. 
~ 


CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY 


CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY 


EDITORS 
PAUL SHOREY, Managing Editor 
FRANK Frost ABBOTT GorDON J. LAING 
CaRL DARLING BUCK FRANK Justus MILLER 
WILLIAM GARDNER HALB FRANK BIGELOW TARBELL 


ASSOCIATE EDITORS 


WILLIAM PETERSON 
SAMUEL BALL PLATNER 
Joan C, ROLFE 
CHARLES FORSTER SMITH 
ANDEEW FLEMING WEST 
BENJAMIN [08 WHEELER 
JOHN WILLIAMS WHITE 


CHARLES E. BENNETT 
WILLIAM ARTHUEB HEIDEL 
GEORGE LINCOLN HENDRICKSON 
FRANCIS W. KELSEY 

WALLACE Μ. LINDSAY 

ELMER TRUESDELL MERRILL 
HANNS OERTEL 


VOLUME III 
JANUARY— OCTOBER, 1908 


“-.ὡὦὠὦ . .“ 
. e 8. 


ev ow Φω ὃ, ve . ΄ . - 9 
. Py , 5 " . -,ἷ τιν - 
2 es 86 a+ 6 8» . Φ 2 -? 
. ᾿ ᾿ 
Φ 


ΩΣ "» - ΄ 
eaeaeeuwn . ὃ -ν 6. 


CHICAGO 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
1908 


Published 


January, April, July, October, 1908 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 


Chicago, Illinois, U. 8. A. 


CONTENTS OF VOLUME III 


ARTICLES 


Frank Frost Assort, Some Spurious Inscriptions and Their 
Authors .. . 
Susan H. Battov, The MSS of the Historia Augusta 
Rosert J. Bonner, The Legal Setting of Plato’s Apology 
The Use and Effect of Attic Seals 
Norman W. DeWirrt, The Verbs ἀείρω, αἴρω, and ἄρνυμαι 
J. ΕΠ ΜΟΒΕ, On the Pronominal Use of ὁ αὐτός in Plato . 
W. 5. Fercuson, The Athenian Calendar .. . 
Frank Hamitton Fow ter, The Origin of Quin- -Clauses ee 
W. Warve Fowter, When Did Caesar Write His Commentaries 
on the Civil War? . . toe 
Tenney Franz, The Semantics of Modal Constructions, Il . 
Epaark J. Goopsprep, Karanis Accounts . . . 
Witiiam Garpner Hatz, The Manuscripts of Catullus 
Avsert Grancer Harkness, The Word-Group Accent in Latin 
Hexameter . 
Franois W. KE sey, Is there a . Science of Classical Philology? 
Emory B. Leass, Livy’s Use of Neque and Neve with an Ampera- 
tive or Subjunctive 2 
Davip Maar, Jr., The Mission of “Agrippa to the Orient in n 23 B. 0. 
ELMER TRUESDELL MERRILL, The Bodleian MS of the Notitia 
Geneva Misener, The εἰ γάρ Wishes... ΝΕ 
H. C. Nourrne, The Substantive Si-Clause . . 
Cuartes J. O’Connor, The Tabula Valeria and the Tabula 
Sestia . ἮΝ . 
SamveL Baty PLATNER, The ‘Ara Martis woe 
J. P. Postaatz, On Some Passages of Catullus and Martial . 
Rosert S. Raprorp, Notes on Latin Synizesis. . . . . 
Henry A. Sanpers, The Chronology of Early Rome 
Duane Reep Srvart, The Point of an Emperor’s Jest . 
E. H. Sturtevant, Notes on Greek Etymology 
F. B. Tansey, The Palm of Victory . 
Grorce Rezves ΤΉΒΟΟΡ, A New Manuscript of Cicero’: 8 De: senec- 
tute 
ULRICE VON Witamowrrz-Moz.ienvorr, De Euripidis Stheneboea. . 
Franois A. Woop, Greek and Latin Etymologies 
Vv 


vi ConTENTS OF VOLUME III 


NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 


Frank Frost ΑΒΒΟΤΊ, Comment on Professor Foster’s Note 
Comment on Professor Postgate’s Note 
CaMPBELL Bonner, Varia. . ΝΞ 
Note on Plato, Rep. iii. 3887 C . . .. 
Watter Dennison, Caesar Bell. Gall. vi. 80. 4 Again 
W. E. Ὁ. Downes, Ovid Fasti iv. 209 ΝΞ ΕΣ 
GeorGe Converse ΕἾΒΚΕ, Two Notes on Latin Satire 


B. O. Foster, The Latin Grammarians and the Latin Accent . 


Cuar.es Hoeina, Notes on the Monumentum Ancyranum 
A. G. Larrp, Notes on the Epttrepontes of Menander 


W. Pererson, Transposition Variants in Cicero’s Pro Cluentio 


S. B. Priarner, Juvenal i. 7-9 . 
J.P. Postaate, Accent in Latin . 

Catullus lxiv. 382 ff... . . 
Henry W. Prescott, The New Fragments of Menander . 


J. S. Βειν, Note on the introductory Epistle t to the Bighth Book 


of Caesar’s Gallic War 
Joun A. Scort, Notes to Homer 
F. W. ΒΕ ΡΥ, Tacitus Annales i. 28. 1 ΝΣ 
Pact ὅβηόοβκευ, An Emendation of Aelian Περὶ Ζῴων viii. 1. δ 


Emendations οὗ Themistius’ Paraphrase of Aristotle’s Physics 


Note on Plato Philebus 11 8. c. . 
Notes on the Text of Alcinous’ Εἰσαγωγή . 
Notes on the Text of Simplicius De Caelo 
Varia . ἊΣ ον eee 


MISCELLANEOUS 
Thomas Day Seymour, obituary notice (J. W. W.) . 
Minton Warren, obituary notice (G. L. Hendrickson) 

BOOK REVIEWS 


Apams, Lysias, Selected Speeches (Bridgman) . 

Attmann, Die italisechen Rundbauten (Platner) 

AttmaNN, Die rdmischen Grabaltére der Kaiserzeit ( Tarbell) 
AusFrELD-Kro tt, Der griechische Alexanderroman (Ferguson) 


Barker, The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle (Shorey) 
Beare, Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition f from Alcemaeon to 


Aristotle(Heidel). . . 
Bean, Die ficoronische Cista (Tarbell) . . 
Brass, Die Eumeniden des Aischylos (Shorey) . 
Bonporant, Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus (Sanders) 
Bréat, Pour mieux connaitre Homére (Seymour) 


ConTENTS OF VOLUME III vii 


Busott, Griechische Geschichte bis zur Schlacht bei Chaeronea 


(Bonner). . errs 5 | 
CoL.ienon, Scopas ot Praxitale (Tarbell) . re . 867 
Crakk, Q. Asconii Pediani orationum Ciceronis quinque enarratio 

(Rolfe) ... 121 
Cromuey, On the Social Standing of “Freedmen as ‘Indicated i in the 

Latin Writers (Moore) . . . 122 
Cumont, Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain 
| (Showerman) . . . 465 
DeWirt, The Dido Episode i in ‘the Aeneid of Virgil (Fairclough) 221 
Drumann-GrOBE, Geschichte Roms, Bd. III, 2te Aufl.(Abbott) . . 120 
Experkin, Aspects of the Speech in the Later Greek Epic (Paschal) 114 
Emerson, Catalogue of the Art Institute of Chicago (Chase) . . 368 
Farrpanxs, The Mythology of Greece and Rome (Showerman) . . 112 
Finsier, Platon und die Aristotelische Poetik (Shorey) es 461 
FisHer, Cornelii Taciti Annalium libri (Rolfe) . . . . 121 


Garnixr, Die Praposition als sinnverstaérkendes Prafix j im Rigveda 
in den homerischen Gedichten und in den — des 


Plautus und Terenz (Kellerman) . . . . . 127 
GerenreLt-Hont, The Hibeh Papyri, Part I (Goodspeed) . . . . 858 
Haun, Rom und Romanismus (Rolfe) . . . . 110 
Hensz, Die Modificirung der Maske in der  griechischon Tragodi 

(Hutson). . . . 458 
Herxenrnata, Der Enoplios (Shorey) εν 860 


Horrmann, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum (Buck) 102 
Hotmes, Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar 
(Dennison) . . tow ew ww we ee 468 
Hors, The Language of Parody (Smith) . . . . 218 
Imm, C. Suetoni Tranquilli de Vita Caesarum Libri viii i (Howard) 360 
Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, Tom. I, 5, 


Tom. ITII,5(Capps). . . 455 
Jorpan-HO sen, Topographie der Stadt Romi in Alterthum (s. B. P. ) 855 
Kwnoxe, Begriff der Tragédie nach Aristoteles (Milner). . . . 106 
Konze, Die Germanen in der antiken Literatur (Terry) . . . 118 
Lanorant, The Golden Days of the Renaissance in Rome (Planer 117 
Learas, Etude sur la Thébatde de Stace (Burnam) . . . . 115 
ΠΈΒΜΑΝΝ, Altgriechische Plastik (Tarbell) . . . . . 866 
Maoxait, Select Epigrams from the Greek Anthology (Murray) . 209 
Mauarry, The Silver Age of the Greek World (Ferguson) .. . 118 
Maronant-UNDERHILL, Xenophon’s Hellenica (Laird) .. . 463 
Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemder- 

zeit (Buck) . . 361 


Mettuet, De quelques innovations de la déclinaison latine (Buck) 862 
Miurer The Tragedies of Seneca (Magie) . ....... 363 


Vili ConTents oF VoLumME III 


Mopveno, 1] concetto della vita nella filosofia greca (Shorey) . . 459 
Moexper, Homer und die altionische Elegie (Scott). . . . . . 128 
Nairn, Chrysostom, De sacerdotio (Goodspeed) ..... . . 868 
ΝΊΤΒΟΗΕ, Demosthenes und Anaximenes (Burgess) . . 858 
Oxvcotr, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Epigraphicae: A Dictionary 
of the Latin Inscriptions, Vol. I, fascc. 6-10 (Dennison) . . 228 
Orto, Priester und Tempel in hellenistischen Aegypten (Breasted) 119 
Pats-Curtis, Ancient Italy (Botsford) . . . 451 
Passy, Petite phonétique comparée des principales langues europé- 
ennes (Buck) . . . 862 
PLENKERS-TRAUBE, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen 
Philologie des Mittelalters (Rand) .. . 124 
RaperMacHer, M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Libri xii 
(Peterson) . . 846 
Rann, The Role of the MATEIPOI in ‘the Life of the Ancient . 
Greeks (Peppler). . . . 219 
Renxema’s Observationes criticae et exegeticae ad Cc. Valeri Flacci 
Argonautica (Zllis) . . . woe ew ew ew ws 847 
Riowarpson, Horace’s Alcaic Strophe (Goodell) we ew ww ss 128 
Rosinson, Ancient Sinope (Westermann). . . 2 es. 468 
Ross, Aristotle, De Sensu and De Memoria (Shorey) » oe ee . 125 
ScHROEDER, Sophoclis Cantica (Shorey) ... . . . . . . 854 
Sryrmoor, Life in the Homeric Age (Norlin). . ...... . 458 
Sawyer, The Menexenus of Plato(Heidel) ....... . 859 
Sminey, Latinitas and “EXAywopos(Rand). ....... =.=. 116 
Tuoxer, The Frogs of Aristophanes (Forman) . . 214 
Weser, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers “Hadrianus 
(Sanders) .. . . . 4650 
WECELEIN, Ausgewahlte Tragddien des Euripides (Capps) . 218 
Witamow!1Tz-Mor._enporrF et al., Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Teil I, 
Abteilung VIII (Peppler) . 459 
Wraiaat, A Short History of Greek Literature from. Homer to 
Julian (Fowler) ...... ΝΕ © | 
ERRATA 
P. 8, n. 1, read: “on” for “no.” P. 137, 1. 14, read: Baumlein. 
P. 14, n. 2, read: “Principles” for P. 262, ll. 13,14: delete “Cinna,” and 
“Aims.” for “then” read “there.” 


P. 44, n. 4, read: “utro” for “ultro.” P. 263, 1.18: for “hint” read “point.” 


Classical Philology 


Vor. ΠῚ ‘fanuary, [908 No. 1 


THE SEMANTICS OF MODAL CONSTRUCTIONS 
By ΤΈΝΝΕΥ FRANK 


II. NULLA CAUSAST QUIN DET 


We found in the preceding paper (Class. Phil. II, pp. 163 ff.) 
that some of the relative clauses of the usual consecutive form 
were prone to become expressions of “obligation or propriety.” 
Such was the function of the group nil est quod det when quod is 
adverbial. The more explicit expressions, however, are wont to 
convey the notion of reason or motive more unmistakably. They 
do so by using connectives like cur, quin, quam ob rem, that 
teem with the idea of cause, and by use of the word causa or the 
like in the antecedent. In the present paper we propose to 
sketch the use of such idioms in Latin, discover to what extent 
they are connected with similar modal usages in closely related 
languages, and indicate their position with reference to the 
simpler idioms of Latin. 

I. The idea of obligation or propriety is not often strong in 
clauses with quod. It does not even permeate all of those in 
which quod’ is an accusative of respect and almost equivalent to 
cur. Six of the Plautine instances have a negative main clause. 
They are as follows: ntl est iam quod tu mihi suscenseas, Merc. 
817; bono animo’s ... . nil est quod timeas, Amph. 1182; nil 
erit quod deorum ullum accusites, Most. 712; nil est quod metuas, 


1 These lists exclude characterizing clauses of fact, however closely allied in form 
they may be. Of. Capt. 741: in morte nil est quod metuam mali; Ps. 675, etc. 
([CuassIicAL PHrio.oey ITI, January, 1908] 1 


2 TENNEY FRANK 


Ps. 1066; nil est de signo quo<d> vereare, Trin. 808; isti quod 
suscenseam ipsi ntl est, As. 146. It is well to note that the verb 
is only once in the first person, that the governing clause pre- 
cedes in all but the last instance, and that the verb in every 
instance is one of mental activity. 

The occurrences after an affirmative are: bonamst quod ha- 
beas gratiam mihi, Rud. 516; tibi quidem quod rideas magis est 
quam ut lamentere, Merc. 502; si animum vicisti . . . . est quod 
gaudeas, Trin. 310; si factumst . . . . est quod mihi suscenseas, 
Trin. 1166. These are also in the second person and deal with 
verbs of mental activity. Two instances that show a slight 
difference are: quid est quod caveam,' Rud. 833, which repeats 
the thought of a virtual command in the context, and etsi nil 
scio quod gaudeam, Capt. 842, which slightly varies the phrase- 
ology of the ordinary negative type. 

These instances in Plautus represent pretty fairly the regular 
usages of Latin. As for Cicero, nihil est quod, when quod is 
adverbial, occurs some twenty times in the part of Cicero covered 
by Merguet, and invariably with a tone of obligation or pro- 
priety. However, the first person, usually a plural, which includes 
speaker and listener, is almost as frequent as the second. The 
third also occurs. Cf. Leg. Agr. ii. 88, timeremus,; Sull. 9, ad- 
mirere; Sest. 104, dissentiat, etc. The verb is usually, though 
not always, one of mental activity. The formula quid est quod 
is very frequent in Cicero, but does not yield the meaning here 
discussed, except in a few rhetorical questions of the first person, 
like quid est quod plura dicamus? Clu. ὅθ. This use of quid 
est quod chiefly with the first person and in the same phrases as 
employed by quid (=cur) would indicate that the group had 
grown to be synonymous with quid and was perhaps pronounced 


1The formula quid est quod seldom introduces an expression of obligation. It 
usually takes a characterizing clause of fact. Of. quid est quod metuas? idem istuc 
quod tu, Pers. 239; also Poen. 884, 867; Bacch. 92; Capt. 618. The retort istuc quod 
tu shows that quod is a pure relative pronoun. It is often used as an accusative of 
respect = cur; but its subjunctive is still to be considered an instance of the charac- 
terizing type. Of. quid est quod non metuas? quia, Ps. 1087, alao Bacch. 1156, 
pudeat; Rud. 629, 688, tumultues; Cur. 166, voces. In fact, the verb may still be 
found in the indicative in early Latin, as in other undeveloped characterizing clauses: 
quid est quod laetus es, Hun. 559. Cf. Andr. 447; cf. oportet, in est quod.... 
oportet, Hec. 273. 


΄ SEMANTICS OF MopAaL CONSTRUCTIONS. 8 


as one word. (The interrogative examples in the second and 
third persons and most of those in the first contain relative char- 
acterizing clauses of fact, or substantive clauses of motive like 
quid est quod accuses? Verr. ii. 49, ““why do you accuse?” We 
are therefore not concerned with them.) 

A second distinct type consists of sentences introduced by 
nulla causast quin and the like. The instances in Plautus are 
as follows: (a) nulla causast quin me verberes, Cas. 1003; 
condones, Rud. 1070; feras, Rud. 1897. (δ) hau causast.... 
quin facias, Most. 435 (cf. redeat, Ter. Hec. 588). (c) quid 
causaest quin te sauciem? Rud. 758 (proficiscar, Ter. Andr. 
600). (d) numquae causast quin faciamus hodie? Aul. 261; 
des, Capt. 353. (6) numquid causaest quin uxorem cras domum 
ducam? Trin. 1188; condam, Ps. 533. (7) nullam causam 
dico quin siet, Capt. 626; insimules, Amph. Fr. 13 (ferat, Ter. 
Phor. 272). (9) numquid causam dicis quin te hoc multem 
matrimonio? Amph. 852. (h) haud causificor quin eam habeam, 
Aul. 156. 

In these clauses the antecedent is always a negative or a 
negating question, as is to be expected of quin-clauses.' In the 
questioning form the first person predominates, otherwise the 
second person. As for meaning, they produce a tone of pro- 
priety or reasonableness in a very narrow sense of those terms. 
They are not true synonyms of oportet or debet. The question, 
or exclamation rather, is usually not one of moral obligation in- 
volved by duty, as is usually the case of oportet and debet. It 
is rather a question of reasonableness as regards punishment for 
& crime, or permission to do a desired act. So in Cas. 1003, 
Am, Fr. 18, Most. 435, Rud. 1070, Capt. 353, 626, the sense is: 
“There is no reason why you should not (be allowed to) punish 
me for that.” In Am. 852, Ps. 533, Rud. 758, Aul. 756, it is: 
“Why should I not (be allowed to) punish you for that?” And 
in Aul. 261, Trin. 1188, Rud. 1397: ‘‘Is there any reason why 
we should not (be permitted to) have this?” 

In Cicero this type is relatively rarer, giving way to expres- 
sions with cur. Some of the representative examples with quin 


10f. Morris Aims and Methods in Syntaz, p. 160, for an explanation that is at 
least partially true. 


4 TENNEY FRANK 


are: causae nihil esset quin secus indicaret, Cic. Quinct. 32; 
promiserit, ἰδία. 57; numquid est causae quin vicerim? Quinct. 
84; also Q. Rosc. 41; Leg. Agr. ii. 40; ibid. 74. 

A few instances with cur, quam ob rem, and qui are of the 
same nature: non tusta causast quocr> curratur, ubi bibas? ‘Is 
there not fair cause for speed if there be a bottle in sight?” 
Poen. 533; nequest quor studeam has nuptias mutarier, St. 52; 
haud promeruit quam ob rem vitio vorteres, Am. 1142. This is 
a substantive clause. The rest are virtually characterizing clauses: 
nil q. o. r. id faciam (eos) meruisse arbitror, St. 82; quid... . 
<com>merut mali q. o. ὃ. ita faceres? <Aul. 736; quid merear 
q. 0. r. mentiar? Most. 987; quid habetis qui mage immortales 
vos credam esse quam ego? Poen. 276; quid de te merui qua me 
causa perderes? Men. 490. In this list’ again the antecedent is 
negative or a question with a negative implication. The instances 
with quam ob rem are all connected with mereo or its compounds. 

These idioms change somewhat by the time of Cicero. The 
expressions with cur, particularly causa cur, grow in prominence. 
Some representative instances follow: causa cur mentitetur non 
erat. Quinct. 18; postulares, ibid. 87; facerent, Tull. 55; nulla 
causa est cur... . velis, Sex. Rosc. 146; Clu. 64; quid est 
causae cur non pertimescat? Flacc. 5; cogerer, Phil. i. 11; 
quae causa est cur tollamus! Lael. 48; properaret, Milo 49. 

cur is also found without causa: nihil est cur alius alio 
melior existimetur, Font. 22; cf. Milo 49; Nat. deor. iii. 28; 
Tusc. i. 109. ; 

quam ob rem holds its own with such expressions, though it 
no longer shows its former fondness for mereor. Some examples 
are: quae fuit causa ᾳ. o. r. venenum dare vellet, Cael. 56; 
nihil ertt q. o. r. requiratur, Font. 25; Verr. iii. 186; quid est 
q. 0. r. quisquam putet, Clu. 182; cf. videatur, Sull. 89, also 81. 


1 These particles are of course used freely in other dependent clauses both indica- 
tive and subjunctive. Thus cur frequently introduces an indirect question of fact 
(As. 730, scire cur ludatis, and Capt. 1007); or serves as a relative pronoun in charac- 
terizing clauses of fact; cf. Verr. i. 80; iv. 10, etc. quam ob rem may be a relative 
pronoun in a determinative clause (Pers. 780; Rud. 430), or in a characterizing clause 
(Most. 415, nequid potiatur, q. o. r. pigeat), or may introduce indirect questions (scio 
q. 0. r. credas, As. 842; cf. Am. 19). The subjunctive after qui usually has a tone of 
potentiality, as is to be expected from its meaning; cf. Most. 992 and Men. 304, and 

‘ preceding study. 


SEMANTICS OF ΜΌΡΑΣ, CONSTRUCTIONS 5 


These formulae usually occur in Cicero in the orator’s attempt 
to refute an opponent by showing the unreasonableness of his 
contention. ‘‘What motive could Caelius have for wishing to 
poison that woman?” Cael. 56, is a typical instance. The opor- 
tet to which such expressions are nearest is one of logical necessity, 
not of moral obligation. 

II. In the present problem it will prove convenient to change 
to some extent the order of procedure employed in the former 
paper. I shall discuss the possible congeners as found in the 
cognate languages before attempting to find the grammatical 
affinities of our construction within its own language. Mr. 
Elmer (A. J. P. XV, pp. 313 ff. and Cornell Studies VI, pp. 213 ff. ) 
has hitherto provided the fullest’ discussion of the sentences that 
“convey the should-idea,” although he confines his observations 
in the main to simple sentences. On p. 225 of the latter work 
he quotes Hom. JI. ii. 250, τῷ οὐκ ἂν βασιλῆας ἀνὰ στόμ’ ἔχων 
ἀγορεύοις, as an example of this usage in Greek. The question 
arises: Is this usage so prevalent in Greek, Sanskrit, Germanic 
‘as to justify the assumption of an early and common Indo- 
European modal construction of this sort to which the Latin 
should be traced? Let us see. The closest and most prevalent 
parallel in Greek to a simple Latin construction of the kind is 
found in such questions as Soph. Ant. 1194, τί γάρ σε μαλθάσσοιμ᾽ 
ἂν ὧν ἐς ὕστερον ψεῦσται φανούμεθ᾽; (—=cur enim te deleniam 
verbis), where τί is used adverbially like quid (ΞΞ cur). I shall 
give all the examples that occur in Sophocles for illustration: τί 
δ᾽ ἄν pe καὶ κρίνοις: Trach. 314; τί δῆτ᾽ av σκοποῖτό τις τὴν Πυθό- 
μαντιν ἑστίαν; O. R. 964; τί δ᾽ ἂν φοβοῖτ᾽ ἄνθρωπος: ibid. 977; 
τί δῆτ᾽ ἂν ἄλλο τοῦτ᾽ ἐπεντέλλοις ἔτι; Ant. 218; cf. Aes. Sept. 
104, τί οὖν ἔτ᾽ ἂν σαίνοιμεν ὀλέθριον μόρον; (== quid igitur adule- 
mur?) There are five instances in Sophocles. They are not 
bonafide questions, but exclamations against the uselessness or 


11 find the usage recognized earlier in Hale’s Synopsis of the Modal Uses of the 
Finite Verb. He has long grouped it as a separate subdivision after the optative, 
influenced, I believe, by the nature of the Sanskrit and Greek optative of a similar 
kind. The Hale-Buck Grammar gives a pretty full list of dependent clauses of the 
same function, $§ 612, 513. It must be evident, however, that the theory underlying 
this discussion is very different from that which underlies the classification in the 
Hale-Buck Grammar. 


6 TENNEY FRANK 


unreasonableness of some proposal actually made or condition 
expressed or implied in the preceding words. In order the better 
to analyze this usage, I would call attention to the other con- 
structions that occur with τύ τί is usually a pure interrogative, 
meaning quid, “what.” Its verb in such cases is naturally indi- 
cative if it is a question of fact. It may also take a subjunctive 
“question of deliberation.” All of these we omit, and pass to the 
optative usages. There are three: ; 

a) τί is an interrogative pronoun = quid? (““what?”): cf. Ant. 646, ri 
τόνδ᾽ ἂν εἴποις ἄλλο πλὴν αὑτῷ πόνους φῦσαι; See also Ant. 89, 552; Trach. 
680; Ο. C. 71; Αἱ, 107, 581; while Phil. 895, and 1393 are nearly 
“‘deliberatives.” 

ὃ) τί is an interrogative adverb = 7ui? quomodo? (“how?”’): cf. Ag. 
537, τί δῆτ᾽ ἂν... . ὠφελοῖμί σε; “How then can I serve thee as the case 
now stands?” Jebb; also Zi. 1483, and a list of similar usages with πῶς 
in the preceding study. 

6) τί is an interrogative adverb=cur (“why?”). These are the ones 
we are studying. I have listed them above. 


Mark that the mode of the verb is the same throughout (the 
optative with ἄν), but its function changes with the changes in 
meaning of the interrogative. In the first it is simply hypo- 
thetical, in the second ‘‘potential,” and in the third a “question 
of propriety.” For the interpreter of the sentences, the nature of 
τί is determined by the nature of the situation. In all three 
cases we are dealing with situations and proposals that are more 
or less hypothetical. In the second case the proposal is obviously 
impossible of achievement. Hence we interpret the standing 
formula with some expression like “How ... . could one?” 
In the third, the proposal is presented as unreasonable. Hence 
this time we interpret it with: ‘‘Why should one?” 

Is it not evident then that in such questions the notions of 
“potentiality” and “obligation” have their abode in the different 
introductory particles and in the rest of the context rather than 
in the mood of the verb? The mood is the same in all three 
questions. It is the mood of hypothetical expressions adapted’ 

1It may well be, of course, that in this particular idiom the adaptation has become 


permanent, and that the idiom as it stands in classical Greek retains no trace of the 
earlier modal function. 


SEMANTICS OF MopAL CONSTRUCTIONS q 


to these particular circumstances. These “questions of obliga- 
tion” are never adequate synonyms of δεῖ. They are always 
exclamatory. In bona fide questions of obligation with τί (= cur) 
dei’ is necessary. 

Apart from these questions with τί, one could readily discover 
various other modal expressions that under certain circumstances 
convey the idea of obligation or propriety. (For the matter of 
that, “‘no” may be equivalent to “yes” under the proper circum- 
stances: “Since maids in modesty say ‘no’ to that | which they 
would have the profferer construe ‘aye.’’’ The fact was known 
before Shakespeare uttered this platitude, and yet the lexicographer 
does not consider “yes” a synonym of “no.’’) Such is the ex- 
ample quoted by Elmer (ay . . . . ἀγορεύοις, see above, p. 5), 
and the optatives of Od. xviii. 79, viv μὲν μήτ᾽ εἴης Bovydie μήτε 
γένοιο have drifted so far from the tone of pure wishes as possibly 
to fall into such a group, if we tried to make one. However, to 
go about gathering up such mavericks from the four winds into a 
new herd and rebranding them would involve questionable ethics, 
to say the least, 

Modal expressions of ‘‘obligation and propriety” in Greek are, 
therefore, rare. They bear the appearance of being sporadic occur- 
rences performing a somewhat abnormal function beyond their 
regular spheres. At most we may say that a few, like the optative 
question with τί (= cur), have been perpetuated by such “freaks” 
and have continued to perform to a limited extent the duties 
of δεῖ, 

As for Sanskrit there is a widespread and well-established 
usage of the optative that is not far from this in meaning. [ 
refer to the prescriptive usage; cf. R.V. v. 18, 1: Pratér agnih 
puropriyé vegéh stéveta. Delbrack (Altind. Synt., pp. 333 ff.) 
gives a number of instances. This, however, differs funda- 
mentally from most of the examples that occur in Greek, for it is 
clearly an outgrowth of the optative. Just as a subjunctive ex- 
pressing will is prone to assume the burden of issuing commands, 
so an optative of desire may well have put on dignity and func- 


τοί, Soph. Pail. 11, 102, 1060; O. R. 897, 13834; O. OC. 1148, 1420; Trach. 814; Αἱ. 
393; and others. 


8 TENNEY FRANK 


tioned as a prescriptive. One is almost tempted to read a chapter 
of ecclesiastical history into this semantic change. The humble 
Vedic priest perpetually praying employs a great number of op- 
tatives, the powerful Brahman has come to utter the same formulae 
in the tone of one whose desire is law. 

The Germanic dialects show no well-established usage of the 
optative performiug such functions. The nearest approach to it 
may be found in some questions of the first person of which an 
illustration may be found in my paper on the ‘“‘Optative in the 
Edda” (A. J. P. XXVII, p. 6), hvt of segjak bér? ‘Why should 
I tell you?” (Skm. 4). Whatever notion of “obligation” may 
be found in such expressions certainly emanates from the expres- 
sion as a whole and does not lie in the mode of the verb. 

This survey of the most typical expresssions of obligation and 
propriety in the cognate languages can lead to but one conclusion. 
The idioms have nothing in common but function. They differ 
widely in form. Some have the form of questions of the first 
person in the optative or subjunctive; some, that of optative or 
subjunctive wishes and commands. Some (in Greek with the 
optative + dv) are akin to hypothetical expressions. Grammarians 
who study the semantics of words dare not recognize relationship 
on the basis of function’ alone. In dealing with groups of words 
a rule certainly no less emphatic must be followed. 

We therefore dare not assume a common Indo-European usage 
of the optative or subjunctive for expressions of ‘“obligation”’ or 
‘*propriety,” and shall proceed to search for the creating forces of 
our idiom within the Latin language itself. | 

III. A Roman must have employed a considerable portion of 
his time in discussing his own and his neighbor's obligations, if 
we may judge from the number of words and phrases he kept at 
hand for the expression of such ideas. Even the modal phrases 
of this nature are more numerous in Latin than in most languages; 
for I think we must admit at once with Elmer that such expressions 
are frequent. I am not so confident, however, that Elmer is right 
in gathering all of them into one group and deriving the whole 


10f. F. A. Wood Color Names and Their Congeners, Ὁ. 7: ‘‘Synonymy is of iteelf 
on proof whatever of relationship and ‘comparisons that are made on that basis merely 
are utterly worthless.’’ 


SEMANTICS OF MopAL CONSTRUCTIONS 9 


directly from the constructions of ‘‘contingent futurity.” Such 
questions and statements seem rather to constitute several distinct 
idioms that come from various sources. I even doubt whether 
they ever become so closely allied as to merge into one homogene- 
ous usage, each part of which exerted its influence upon the rest. 
However, the question of the origin of the independent phrases 
lies beyond the scope of this study. Ishall here simply admit my 
recognition of them, and present them in so far as they will help 
to determine the nature of the more complex form which we are 
examining. 

Most of the independent usages in Plautus are in the form of 
questions. cur is one of the favorite interrogatives. Those in 
the affirmative are Capt. 739, cur me esse saluom postulem? <As. 
45-9, quaeram; miniter; suscenseam; Ps. 1295, adflicter; Poen. 
152, mentiar,; ibid. 354, curem,; Pers. 620, mirer. The questions 
in the negative (always non) are Cas. 701, cur non ego id perpe- 
trem? M. G. 811, rogem,; Most. 209, curem. qutn performs the 
same function as cur non’ M. G. 426, quin rogem? In this list 
there is not a genuine question for information. All are uttered 
in order to reject a proposal directly made by another, or in the 
tone of soliloquy. All are in the first person. 

_ quidni is even more limited in usage; cf. Curc. 428, nostin? 
quidni noverim? Am. 434, negem; Men. 912, sentiam; M. G. 
554, fateare; zbid. 923, noverim; 1120, censeam; 13811, fleam; cf. 
Ps. 96, 652. St. 338, rogitem. The expression is simply an 
impatient “of course!”’ 

The adverbial quid, besides introducing deliberative questions, at 
times occurs in questions exclaiming at the uselessness or unreason- 
ableness of an act or proposal: Am. 41, quid memorem? Bacch. 
1049, properem; Most. 581, recursem, etc.; Trin. 1024, petam. 

quam ob rem is found to perform the same function in M. G. 
319, quam ob rem jubeam? Pers. 531, enumerem; St. 208, 
praedicem. If such questions were closely akin to the subjunc- 
tive (optative) of “contingent futurity,” it would seem strange 
that they should thus regularly occur in the first person and only 
in this very limited function. They are clearly as far from 


1 Perhaps faciam, Capt. 856, and feram, Most. 614, are subjunctives. See Sonnen- 
schein’s note on the latter. (2nd ed.) 


10 TENNEY FRANK 


resembling the prescriptive usage in Sanskrit. I shall accept the 
old interpretation’ that finds in them a sort of nervous and irritable 
kin of the other questions that appear in the first person in various 
functions and are usually called by the various names “delibera- 
tive,” ‘‘dubitative,” “challenging,” “questions of remonstrance.” 
An additional idea of duty conveyed by the introductory adverb 
is all that is necessary to change such questions into “questions 
of obligation.” 

The question of this type is relatively less frequent in Cicero, 
although it is somewhat more varied in form, for it often intro- 
duces the third person, and at times the second. cur is the most 
popular interrogative in such phrases in the first person with a 
negative; cf. cur non extimescam, Acad. ii. 87; sequamur, Fin. 
v.47; Pomp. 50; Cat. iv. 2; Piso 79; in the affirmative, censeam, 
Phil. v..16; N. D. 47; Dav. ii. 116; Leg. ii. 25. These are 
similar to the Plautine instances and seem nearly akin to the 
deliberatives, as we showed above. I suspect that the sentences in 
the third person may have had a different history. At least they 
are often used in a different type of sentence; cf. cur minimo 
declinent intervallo, maiore non? De fato 46, ‘‘Why should 
(would?) the atoms swerve the least possible distance, and not a 
greater one?” This is a “should” of logic, and belongs to the 
hypothetical forms in argument. Perhaps in the consciousness of 
the writer they are hypothetical. Elmer’s theory would find sup- 
port in such cases. Other similar ones are: Zenoni licuit, cur 
non liceat Catont? Fin. iii. 15; cur fortior sit, Fin. iv. 58; dest- 
deret, Tusc. v. 89; adimat, v. 112; cur non habeat; sit, non sit, 
Rep. iii. 17. However, there is also an evident extension into the 
third person of the function so common in the first person in 
instances like cur non sit praeda communis? Phil. ii. 72; cur 
non turet? Dom. 80; confidat, Flacc. 5. It may well be too that 
after all three persons had become familiar with this function in 
dependent clauses like quid est causae cur non, the usage recoiled 
upon independent phrases. At least such a possibility is suggested 
by sentences like: quid est causae cur non is, qui Catilinam ex urbe 


11 need not undertake a detailed discussion of Elmer’s arguments. Bennett has 
convincingly overthrown the proofs upon which Elmer laid the greatest stress, Cornell 
Studies IX, pp. 1-30. 


SEMANTICS OF MopAL CONSTRUCTIONS 11 


pepulit, pertimescat; . . .. cur sibi confidat is qui . . . . cura- 
vit? Flace. 5. The second cur-question confidently performs the 
necessary function after the fuller phrase quid est . . . . cur set 


the example. The second cur-clause is hardly to be considered 
dependent. The other questions of this type show little change 
in Cicero. Note the usage in the following: quidni neget? Verr. 
ii. 80; quidni laudet? Off. ii. 16; possim, Tusc. v.12. The usage 
is rare. | 

quid is found in abundance in Cicero in such questions, almost 
always with the first person. Most of its occurrences are in set 
phrases of the type: quid loquar plura? Pis. 719; quid ego vetera 
repetam? Verr. iii. 182; quid memorem? disputem? etc. State- 
ments as well as questions betray this meaning. Elmer (p. 221) 
quotes the following sentence as an illustration: Pers. 123-26, 
Cynicum esse egentem oportet parasitum probe: pallium marsup- 
pium habeat. Morris clearly analyzes the force of this (A. J. P. 
XVITI, p. 279): “with an ideal or typical person—the subjunc- 
tive expresses only propriety, the direct form of will being 
excluded.”” The writer is simply using a familiar form, a sub- ὁ 
junctive of command, in a situation that later acumen recognizes 
as somewhat incompatible with that form. I am even inclined to 
think that such cases may not be merely accidental, but had gained 
their independent existence as a recognized idiom. If so, their 
history is something of a parallel to the Sanskrit ‘‘prescriptive,” 
though they are humbler in tone and probably related to expres- 
sions of will rather than of wish. 

The occurrences in the past tense, like Rud. 842, caperes aut 
fustem aut lapidem, have also received a convincing analysis by 
Morris (tbid., p. 281): 


Obligation is one of the many meanings of the subjunctive in the 
present, though it is somewhat infrequent, and it is the only one which 
has, so to speak, survived the transfer from present time to past. The 
other shades of will or desire cannot be used of a past feeling. Command, 
entreaty, advice, permission, determination are excluded; only obligation 
remains. 


Such are the commoner modal expressions of ‘‘propriety and 
obligation” in independent sentences. We must conclude, I think, 


12 TENNEY FRANK 


that they are largely unrelated and highly specialized idioms 
which have emerged from several sources, i. e., expressions of com- 
mand, deliberation, desire, ideality, and that they have hardly 
coalesced into one type, though some are similar enough in form 
and function to influence each other. It must now be even more 
apparent that it would be quite unsafe to refer these idioms to a 
common usage in the parent speech. With so much accomplished 
we may now turn to the more complex expressions. 

Having already listed them and marked their habits, it only 
remains to attempt a search into their earlier history in the light 
of such facts as they and the closely related constructions afford. 
The first group appears in the form of ordinary characterizing 
clauses. There is a slight difference in function. Could the 
characterizing clause as it stands assume this additional function ? 

Compare the clause of fact, ntl est quod metuam, “there is 
nothing that I fear,” with the clause of “propriety,” istt quod 
suscenseam nil est, “there is no reason why I should be angry at 
her.” The second has the same structure as the first, except that 
quod is an ‘accusative of respect” and thereby becomes a synonym 
of cur, “why.” Now, the answer’ to a question of ‘“‘why?” either 
motivates an actual state (or act), or explains the propriety of a 
proposed or conceivable act; it answers either “why does (did, 
will do)?” or “why should hedo?” But the negative antecedent 
of our stereotyped idiom excludes the first. We do not ordinarily 
motivate the non-existing. The implication is therefore inevitable 
that the question has become one of propriety. 

I am sorry I cannot make the general statement more simple, 
for I seem to hear my solitary reader retorting that this is too 
intricate for folk-logic. But I do not pretend that the process 
was conscious. It is merely due to the limitation of the experi- 


1This is true for the ordinary situations that call for expression. Rhetorical or 
figurative uses would extend farther. I may add the obvious fact that even the first 
sentence involves a fallacy in form, in that it seems to characterize an antecedent the 
existence of which is denied by the negative; but that is a fallacious form which 
has permanently adopted. Logic can do nothing with expressions like 
41 don’t think he is here.’? What I mean to say is that language may be frugal, with- 
out being logical. She will use an unthinkable form if she can make it stand for a 
common experience, but she will not create fixed phrases to express unusual experi- 
ences simply because they may be conceivable. 


SEMANTIOS OF MopAL CONSTRUCTIONS 18 


ences we have to express. For instance, we have little need for a 
collocation like, “There is no reason why he does it,” while we 
hear every day the expression, “There is no reason why he should 
do it.” Our own ambiguous expression, ‘‘There is no reason for 
doing it,” is usually one of propriety regarding acts proposed or 
conceived of, though we somewhat illogically extend it, for example, 
in censure, especially with a leading verb in the past: ‘‘There was 
no reason for doing it.” That is a sort of ‘‘past propriety.” The 
subjunctive characterizing clause in Latin was just as careless in 
distinguishing between the actual and the hypothetical as that 
English phrase is. It was therefore as easily adapted to express 
both ideas as this English phrase may, according to the demands 
of the context, be equivalent to “does” or to ‘‘should do.” 

The sentences in the second person behave somewhat peculiarly, 
and yet naturally enough. In questions with quid est quod, even 
when quod is used adverbially (= cur), the tone continues to be 
that of a fact-characterizing clause (cf. p. 2, note) whereas after 
statements both affirmative and negative, when quod=cur, the 
feeling of obligation is strong. This points to a similar bit of 
psychology. We ask a man to explain his motives for an act (cf. 
quid est quod timeas, “why do you fear?’’); we are apt to fell 
him his obligations (est quod habeas gratiam, “you should be 
grateful”). I may add that the negative forms according to the 
above-given theory would be the source of the affirmative ones. 

If the theory is correct that such clauses assumed their peculiar 
function while serving as characterizing clauses, this will add one 
more illustration of a fact I have insisted upon before, that there 
is great danger in the popular method of referring to parataxis for 
a solution of every dependent construction. No doubt simple 
questions with quid and cur influenced the complex form quid est 
quod. In fact, we have shown that quid and quid est quod are 
nearly equivalent in Cicero, though the shorter form is more popu- 
lar. However, many of the complex clauses of this form assumed 
the task of expressing obligation or propriety late, when in their 
form of characterizing clauses the resulting collocation suggested 
their fitness for that function. Besides, there would be no little 
difficulty in referring the nil est quod idiom to a paratactic stage; 


14 TENNEY FRANK 


for that would involve the assumption of an interrogative use of 
quod, whereas quod seems to have borrowed its subordinate con- 
structions from qui. Furthermore, as the idiom occurs in early 
Latin, it rarely appears in the first person, where we should expect 
it to appear if its simple element were an ordinary question of 
deliberation. 

Mr. Durham, in his excellent collection of substantive clauses 
(Cornell Studies XIII, p. 77), ventures the belief that “such 
expressions are a development of the relative clause of purpose.” 
The purpose idea is certainly not far off, though as he points out, 
it could not directly explain such substantive clauses as quid est 
quod abeas, “why do you go away?” This seeming close con- 
nection is due, I believe, to the fact that the relative characteriz- 
ing clause is ultimately derived (at least in large measure) from 
expressions of will and tendency,’ a doctrine now very unpopular, 
but I believe true. The actual evolution is then as follows: 
Clauses of purpose and tendency create characterizing clauses; 
some of these in turn evolve into expressions of obligation and 
propriety. . 

In the second group, nulla causa est (quid causae est) quin, 
etc., we must again trace several idioms. The interrogative form 
usually appears in a verb in the first person: cf. quid causae est 
quin te sauciem? Rud. 758 (also Rud. 261, Trin. 1188; Ps. 538, 
Amph. 852); cf. also Cic. Quinct. 84, Q. Rosc. 41, Leg. Agr. ii. 
40, 70, ete. Kienitz De quin particulae usu, is probably right 
in explaining some of the qzuin-clauses as extensions of the deliber- 
ative usage. That is probably the source of these complex questions 
in the first person, though Plautus shows only one independent 
question with quin of the type that we should have to assume for 
their basis: M. G. 426, quin rogem? Morris’ suggests that in such 
sentences the part that constitutes the main clause, nulla causa 
est, was originally spoken to emphasize and define the tone of the 


1 During the last few years this theory has so steadily been rejected by our Ameri- 
can school grammars that the Gildersleeve-Lodge textbook which retains it has become 
quite heterodox in its conservatism. I have no space for a discussion here. Suffice it 
to say that a new and long study of the facts (the results of which may appear later) is 
the justification for the attitude here adopted. 


2 Aims and Methods, p. 159. 


SEMANTICS OF MopAaL CONSTRUCTIONS 15 


question that followed. Several of the Plautine instances were 
obviously not so simple. Some have come under the influence of, 
or arisen from, a legal phraseology (nullam causam dico quin siet, 
Capt. 626; Amph. Fr. 18; Amph. 852; also haud causificor quin 
eam habeam, Aul. 156), and are grammatically akin to the expres- 
sions of hindering, preventing, and the like, with quin. Finally, 
some bear the appearance of having passed through the history of 
other quin-characterizing clauses. In form there is little difference 
between nullust E:phesi quin sciat (“who does not know?” ), Bacch. 
836,’ and, hau causast .... quin facias (“why you should 
not do”), Most. 435. If these are originally of the same group, 
as I suggest with some diffidence, the subsequent history of the 
second, as to its new function, would be similar to that of the nihil 
est quod-clauses, which I attempted to trace above. 

Be the original form of these various clauses what it may, the 
psychology that adapted them into expressions of propriety is 
much the same. As in the preceding group the keynote of the 
antecedent is motive, reason, or cause. It is even more explicit 
than in the group with quod, for causa is here expressed. The 
connective quin reiterates this note. The negative in the antece- 
dent precludes the possibility of its being a characterization of an 
actually existing motive or reason. The inevitable implication of 
the whole is that of propriety, obligation, reasonableness: an 
ethical one if the idea underlying causa is ethical, logical if that 
of causa is logical. 

The dependent cur-expressions of obligation have similar his- 
tories. We have found cur some twelve times in Plautus intro- 
ducing an independent question in the first person and with the 
meaning here discussed. Cf. cur mentiar? Poen. 152. Now, 
nequest cur studeam, St. 52, may be connected almost directly 
with these. The widespread usage of Cicero is somewhat more 
complicated. We have seen how the independent question with 
cur not only extends into the second and third persons, but also 
is frequently used to express a logical necessity, an inference that 
ought naturally,’ should, must, follow from the existing state of 


1Cf. Bacch. 1012, Cist. 18, Curc. 287, Men. 362, Pers. 365, Trin. 534, St. 208, Am. 1064. 
2The Hale-Buck Grammar was the first, I believe, to distinguish such usages. It 
employs the term “natural likelihood ;᾽᾽ see § 515. 


16 TENNEY F' BANK 


affairs. Cf. cur minimo declinent, De fato 46, “For what reason 
should they swerve only the least possible distance?” Zenoni 
licuit, cur non liceat Catoni? Fin. iii. 15, ‘‘Zeno had this privi- 
lege, by what reasoning do you contend that Cato should not have 
it?” This same function is as freely performed by the dependent 
cur-clause, like nihil est cur alius alio melior existimetur, Font. 22, 
“There is no ground for concluding that... . ,” or “From the 
case one should (would naturally) not be esteemed better than the 
other.” 

In the type represented by the last sentence the subjunctive may 
be hypothetical,’ the added function coming from the nature of 
the subject dealt with (i. e., the reasonableness of the argument). 
It may, on the other hand, be an extension in hypotaxis of the 
type so freely found in the first person in Plautus. Whatever the 
source, the complex and the simple forms naturally influenced 
each other, for they continue to be nearly synonymous, the simple 
form being somewhat more incisive. 

I have repeatedly mentioned the distinction between the logical 
and ethical functions of such clauses. They seem to bear the 
same relation toward each other as the two ordinary meanings of 
words like oportet, debet, δεῖ, “‘ought,” etc. In English we say, 
referring to an ethical sanction, ‘“‘you ought to help this poor 
man;” referring to a logical sanction we say, “your thirst ought 
to be quenched, for I just gave you a cup of water.” So in Latin, 
oportet in Amph. δ, uirtute ambire oportet, non fauitortbus, “an 
actor ought to win through excellence, not through favor,” refers 
to what is morally proper, while, in Amph. 322,’ olet homo quidam 
malo suo; haud longe abesse oportet, “89 ought to be somewhere 
in the vicinity,” it involves a question of reasoning. The second 
is probably a figurative usage of the first, having begun by 
attributing the language of moral obligation to that which does 
not exercise the faculty of moral control. So the second usage of 
the subjunctive of obligation may have grown up from a figurative 
use of the first, and may have been suggested and aided by the 


1This would probably be Elmer’s explanation, except that he would use his own 
term ‘contingent futurity.’’ 

2Other examples of this use of oportet in Plautus are Amph. 3816, 318, 327, 783, 
1081; Asin. 381, 465; Bacch. 552, 602, ete. 


SEMANTICS OF MopAaL CONSTRUCTIONS 17 


double use of oportet. If this is the true history of it, and if 
oportet is an exact parallel, the hypothetical subjunctive had less 
to do with the origin of it. 

As for quam ob rem, its subjunctive verbs in the early inde- 
pendent questions are in the first person. Cf. Δ. G. 310, quam 
ob rem iubeam? etc. Its early dependent form we have seen in 
such sentences as St. 82, nil quam ob rem’ id faciam meruisse 
arbitror. Its constant appearance in Plautus with mereor (which 
usually takes an uf-clause) may be accidental and not the sole 
construction of that time. 

quam ob rem does not show its early partiality for mereor in 
Cicero. There it has become in dependent clauses a fair synonym 
of cur, appearing in the same kind of expressions, though with less 
frequency. 

A careful search throughout Latin will discover other dependent 
clauses expressing obligation, if the subject-matter of the antece- 
dent is favorable. This is true of such connectives as qua propter, 
qua re, qua de re, quam ob causam, or any other connectives that 
deal with motive or cause. But such occurrences were sporadic 
and never came to be adopted as fixed idioms. They would add 
little light to the study. 

In this discussion we have traced extensions of function only 
where a clear formal similarity appeared. Now the serious question 
arises as to whether these idioms, coming as they do, from various 
sources, in any way gave rise to a more general feeling that the 
subjunctive alone was adequate to convey the idea of obligation 
or propriety in Latin. May we ever at any period of the Latin 
language speak of a basic conception (Grundbegriff) of obligation 
or propriety as underlying some of the subjunctive usages, apart 
from these fixed idiomatic types? This question involves another 
fundamental problem regarding the limitations of analogical pro- 
cesses in syntax, namely: can functions extend from group to 


1Though quam ob rem, independent, is oftener an interrogative than relative in 
Plautus, in dependent clauses of this type it is usually relative, introducing a consecu- 
tive clause. There is a peculiarly close connection between the ideas of ‘ merit,”’ 
‘*desert,”’ ‘‘worth,’’ and those of due and proper reward. Hence the collocation 
mereor....quamobrem.... habeam (=oporteat habere). Hence, too, in Eng- 
lishing ut- and qui-clauses after dignus, idoneus, mereo, and the like, one readily falls 
into some expression of propriety. Of. the Hale-Buck Grammar, § 514, 3. 


18 TENNEY FRANK 


group except through similiar forms; and, if not, what are the 
limits of dissimilarity through which such extensions may not take 
place? At the present stage of syntactical investigation this ques- 
tion cannat adequately be answered. Confessedly, investigation 
on this point is extremely difficult. In fact, it is the lack of 
_ knowledge on this problem that has rendered many a long-spun 
explanation in syntax mere ephemeral hypothesis, built up of indi- 
vidual opinion, only to be denied by more individual opinion. 
The assumption that one function may influence another regard- 
less of any direct formal analogy has been frequently’ made. But 
it must be admitted that the meager data which have been produced 
to substantiate the assumption do not form a sufficient basis to 
justify the lofty superstructure built upon them. Our present 
study extends over so small a range as to furnish conclusions for 
itself alone. Ifa great number of life-stories were sketched along 
the lines attempted here (with greater keenness of analysis, let us 
hope), the necessary facts might be forthcoming. The conclusions 
from the present study can only be that we have found no usage 
in Latin that is not merely a brief extension from one form to 
another very similar form. The summary at the end should make 
this fact clear. Coming back to the previous question, then, we 
must answer that, since we have been able to trace the function 
here discussed from one fixed idiom to another throughout the 
usages found in Latin, and since we have not been forced to posit 
any general Grundbegriff to account for any such usages, we 
should not be justified in assuming that such basic concepts ever 
came into existence in Latin in connection with these idioms. In 
fact, the behavior of these idioms would present peculiar obstacles 
to such a possibility, for the phraseology in each idiom is so unique 
that the function of obligation would be felt as emanating from the 
combined elements of the phrase (e. g., cur-non-faciam) and not 
from the mood of the verb alone. Unless the function was clearly 
associated with the mood, in individual instances, a general con- 
ception could hardly arise that the mood in general was capable 
of performing such function. 


11 must confess that in writing Attraction of Mood in Early Latin I made such an 
assumption to an extent that I now feel cannot be supported. The intricacies of that 
problem will receive attention later. 


SEMANTICS OF MopAL CONSTRUOTIONS 19 


Let us now summarize our observations on the story of modal 
expressions of obligation and propriety. 

I. These expressions differ so widely in form and function in 
the different languages of the Indo-European group that we are 
not justified in assuming a proethnic usage as the source of the 
different idioms. However, Greek and Sanskrit idioms furnish 
illuminating parallels for various Latin usages. 

II. Early Latin shows the following independent idioms per- 
forming this function, all containing a subjunctive verb: 

1. Questions with cur, quidni, quid, etc., in the first person 
present (akin to a large group of questions of the first person). 
(a) A beginning of an extension into other than the first person, 
in quidni fateare, M. G. 554; largely extended by the time of 
Cicero. (δ) Extensions into past tenses and all three persons, a 
highly specialized idiom that is never popular; cf. caperes fustem, 
Rud. 842. 

2. Statements in the third person; a figurative usage of the 
jussive directed toward ‘‘ideal or typical persons;” cf, marsuppium 
habeat, Pers. 125. 

ΠῚ. In dependent clauses we find the following usages, whether 
direct extensions or new assumptions of the function. | 

1. A direct extension into dependent clauses from the indepen- 
dent questions, the interrogative acquiring subordinating function. 

a) By direct parataxis. Cf. quid mereor quam ob rem men- 
tiar, Most. 987. 

δ) Through “defining” parataxis. Cf. nulla causast quin 
me verberes, quid causaest quintesauciem? Rud. 758. (Remark: 
There is probably a reflex extension from such dependent clauses 
into new and freer independent questions and statements in all 
persons; cf. Face. 5). 

(1) Development of such into full characterizing clauses of all 
persons. Cf. nihil erit quam ob rem requiratur, Font. 25; nihil 
est cur alius melior existimetur, Font. 22. 

2. Certain dependent clauses when already in the hypotactic 
stage assume this function. 

a) At times quite apart from any influence of the independent 
usage. Of. the regular consecutive clause when dealing with 


20 TENNEY FRANK 


motive or reason: nil est quod timeas, Am. 1132; est quod gaudeas, 
Trin. 810, ete. 

δ) At times under the influence of the independent question. 
E. g., cf. quid plura dicamus? with quid est quod plura dicamus? 

IV. The above-mentioned extensions are the only ones for 
which our observations justify a certain affirmation. It is not 
impossible, however, that the Romans used the subjunctive even 
more extensively as a synonym of oportet, debet, etc., having 
gained from the above-mentioned idioms a conception that the 
simple subjunctive was capable of serving in that capacity. 

Finally these two studies have led to some conclusions of more 
or less general applicability. It may seem like a case of petitio 
principis to explain one modal construction by direct reference to 
another. Thus, while we have refused to recognize an independ- 
ent use of the subjunctive in expressions of “capacity” and 
“obligation,” we have in the very same lines accepted the 
“hypothetical” and ‘‘volitive” uses as though they needed less 
explanation. Morris, for instance, from whose work I have received 
many helpful suggestions, does not expose himself to the charge 
of inconsistency by makiug such connections. He goes so far in 
avoiding the assumption of Grundbegriffe that he is prone to see 
a new and open problem in every construction. His attitude in 
this matter is well shown in the following lines from his paper 
in A.J. P. XVIII, p. 395: 


To explain di te perdant and ualeas by saying that they got the 
optative function from di te perduint and saluos sis, and that these 
acquired it at some remote time in some unexplained way, is to turn away 
from the simple forces, working under our eyes, to a vague hypothesis 
which, after all,explains nothing. The forces which can give an optative 
sense to salue or di te amabunt will explain all optative subjunctives. 


We have ourselves shown that with a sufficiency of ‘‘forces” 
an indicative or even an infinitive form might be employed to 
convey “potential” meaning. But the fact remains that it was 
the optative in Greek and the subjunctive in Latin that regularly 
permitted the growth of “potential” idioms. This optative and 
this subjunctive persist and must be explained quite as much as 
the function in question. Modal forms are quite as persistent as 


SEMANTICS OF MopAL CONSTRUCTIONS 21 


word-forms. In the illustration Mr. Morris gives, a future indica- 
tive is found expressing wish in a certain fixed idiom, but amabunt 
standing alone would never express wish, while perduint even 
apart from its lexical meaning needs nothing but the most normal 
context to be a perfectly explicit optative, and even words need 
some context to be explicit. In dealing with modal constructions 
one cannot apply a single method to all alike, for they vary in age, 
stability, and wideness of range. Of course there is little benefit 
derived from referring all constructions to the limbo of what 
Morris calls ‘‘some remote time in some unexplained way.” But 
some actually belong there; they are no longer questions open for 
solution. 

There are certain widespread usages, e. g., of the volitive and 
hypothetical, that appear in several languages. They are quite as 
independent of context for their function as are ordinary words. 
No doubt many of their idiomatic usages need sifting by the pro- 
cess applied by Morris,’ but it will prove dangerous to consider 
every one explicable by the data at hand in historical times. The 
principle I have followed then is something like this: When 
comparative syntax has revealed a common usage of a mood in free 
form and not only in fixed word-groups, I have assumed that the 
usage was established at a time and under circumstances into which 
it may now be futile to attempt to pry. Such usages it is reason- 
able to accept as earlier; they must have served as an ever-present 
force in the creation of later ones. Others, such as those here 
treated, that are limited to stereotyped forms in individual lan- 
gnages, may well be considered problems for solution. If then the 
most stable element in these is the modal form, that form is prob- 
ably the clue of nearest relationship. The minor details of this 
method have been illustrated in application and need no further 
discussion. 


Bryn Mawr CoLuEeGe 


1The methods of Morris may perhaps suggest how such usages originally arose, 
but the mischief may be greater than the benefit if he thus explains as primitive what 
is tertiary or worse. How, for instance, can the question of ‘‘adaptation versus 
agglutination” affect our solvable problems of syntax, when between the date of the 
early word-formations and of our first records a dozen Grundbegriffe may have come 
into focus and broken up again? (See Morris & Oertel, Harvard Studies XVII.) 


SOME SPURIOUS INSCRIPTIONS AND THEIR AUTHORS 
By Frank Frost ABBOTT 


Several scholars in modern times have written chapters on literary 
forgery, but no one seems to have studied in a comprehensive way 
epigraphical forgery and the methods which are employed in 
detecting it, although there is no field of classical study in which 
dishonesty has brought such confusion, as in epigraphy, and, on 
the other hand, in no investigations have scholars displayed more 
acuteness than they have shown in detecting spurious inscriptions. 
This paper, however, does not aim to give a complete survey of 
the subject. Its purpose is merely to bring together a sufficient 
body of facts from the notes in the Corpus and from the reports 
of scholars in the epigraphical journals to show the development 
of the art, and to illustrate the methods of some of its most famous, 
or infamous, promoters. : 

It was so easy two or three centuries ago to compose an im- 
portant inscription, and to win distinction by publishing it to the 
world, and so difficult to detect its spurious character, that many 
scholars yielded to the temptation. Furthermore, the opportune 
publication of a forged inscription might save a weary search in 
establishing a point, furnish a missing link in a chain of evidence, 
or administer a οο de grace to a stubborn opponent. In view 
of this situation we are not surprised to find that the number of 
spurious or suspected inscriptions mounts up to 10,576 in a total 
of 144,044, corresponding to a ratio of about one spurious to 
thirteen authentic inscriptions. The condition of things in the 
several volumes of the Corpus varies greatly. Against Vol. VII, 
with only 24 spurious and 1,355 authentic inscriptions, stand 
Vols. IX and X, which cover the old kingdom of Naples, with 
totals for the two volumes of 1,854*' and 14,841, which stand to 


1These numbers represent the inscriptions published up to the present time in 
Vols. II-XIV of the CIL. Vol. I is not included because the inscriptions contained 
in it are republished elsewhere, and Vol. XV is excluded from the calculation because 
the spurious inscriptions have not yet been published for that volume. For our pur- 
pose it is 8180 unnecessary to take into consideration the published inscriptions which 
have not yet been included in the CIL. 


(CLAssICAL PHILOLOGY III, January, 1908] 22 


Some Spugiovus INSCRIPTIONS AND THEIR AUTHORS 23 


each other in the ratio of one toeight. These differences between 
the several volumes in the matter of forged inscriptions, of which 
the cases just cited are characteristic, tempt one to an estimate 
of the comparative honesty of the Spanish, Roman, Neapolitan, 
French, or English epigraphist and antiquarian. Two or three 
. independent facts also seem to indicate that the national standards 
in this matter among the several European peoples have not been 
the same. Thus, for instance, Donius in the seventeenth century, 
fresh from the chagrin which his deceitful amianuensis Grata had 
caused him, writes to a friend expressing a desire for a Belgian 
to fill the position of secretary for him “cum Itali plerique huic 
officio parum idonei sint” (cf. CIL, VI. 5, p. 2285), and 
Borghesi was so indignant at the large number of forgeries from 
Naples that he was inclined to hold all Neapolitan inscriptions 
under suspicion. On the other hand, the Englishman may feel 
some national pride in the fact that only 24 spurious inscriptions 
are found in the collection from Britain. But conclusions based 
on national or geographical considerations must be drawn with 
great care, for, in point of fact, all the principal continental 
peoples of Europe—the Italians, the Germans, the French, and the 
Spanish—have had representatives in the art of forgery, and an 
examination of the spurious inscriptions shows that the composi- 
tion of them is characteristic of a particular period rather than of 
a given region. The publication of fictitious inscriptions goes 
back to the fifteenth century and was practiced as late as the 
middle of the last century, but its Augustan age runs from the 
middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the seventeenth century. 
Since Italy furnished the most fruitful field for epigraphical study 
at that time, as it does today, and since, consequently, Italians out- 
numbered others in cultivating it, it is not strange that Italian 
forgeries are more numerous than those from other sources. It is 
also true, as we shall have occasion to notice, that two or three 
Italian scholars were very prolific in this field and, therefore, have 
brought up the national average. Turning from the geographical 
factor to the time-element, perhaps we should not boast too much, 
at the expense of our predecessors, of the higher standard of 
epigraphical morals which prevails now, because the certainty of 


Yd Frank Frost ABBOTT 


detectian exerts a most salutary deterrent influence upon those 
who might be inclined to sin in this matter today. We have now 
a avetematic collection of inscriptions; critical principles are well 
vatablished, and interest in classical antiquities is s0 general and 
all parts of the Roman world are reached today with such com- 
parative ease, that a forgery, or the attribution of a forged 
inscription to a particular place, would be readily detected. 

Felix Felicianus of Verona, of the fifteenth century, who is 
perhaps best known for an interesting little treatise upon the 
letters of the alphabet and the best methods of drawing them 
(cf. R. Schone in Eph. Epigr. I, p. 255 ff.), may perhaps be 
regarded as the father of epigraphical forgery. The art did not 
appear in its completed form at once, and the earliest practice of 
it was comparatively naive and harmless. Felicianus and his 
immediate successors never, or rarely, forged inscriptions outright, 
but they pretended to find in some ruin an inscription mentioned 
by an ancient author, or their fictitious finds were based upon 
some statement found in literature. Thus Michael Ferrarinus 
reports as one of his discoveries the epitaph of Ennius, obviously 
taking the text from Cic. Tusc. i 34, and Maszochius in his Epi- 
grammata antiqua urbis, published in 1521, reports the following 
inscription: Divo Gordiano victori Persarum, victori Gothorum, 
victori Sarmatarum, depulsori Romanorum seditionum, victori 
Germanorum, sed non victori Philipporum (CIL. VI. 5. 15 8). 
This is of course taken bodily from the life of the three Gordians 
(chap. 34) by Julius Capitolinus. The latest known forgeries 
are those of Chabassiére, a French engineer who in 1866 published 
through the Academy of Constantine several African inscriptions, 
one of which, an inscription of king Hiempsal, was recognized as 
a forgery by both Mommsen and Wilmanns (cf. CIL. VIII, 
p. 489), and cast discredit upon all the other inscriptions reported 
by Chabassiére alone. 

If the Berlin Academy had persisted in following up the plan, 
which it had adopted in 1850 at Zumpt’s suggestion, of basing the 
Corpus mainly upon the epigraphical texts given in manuscript - 
and printed collections, probably most of the spurious inscriptions 
which have been composed during the four centuries which inter- 


SomE Spurious INSORIPTIONS AND THEIR AUTHORS 25 


vene between Felicianus and Chabassiére, and which now languish 
under the dreaded star, would never have been thus stigmatized. 
Fortunately, Mommsen, before publishing an inscription, insisted 
upon examining the stone, whenever it was in existence, and 
demonstrated the feasibility of his plan and the correctness of his 
method in his Inscriptiones regnt Neapolitani, which appeared in 
1852. Fortunately, too, Mommsen had, perhaps unwittingly, 
selected for this first scientific collection a field, viz. the kingdom 
of Naples, where forgers, as we noticed above, had been most 
active. The attention of the editors of the Corpus was thus drawn 
at the outset to the importance of detecting forged and interpo- 
lated inscriptions, and many of the critical principles upon which 
the science rests today were formulated and applied by Mommsen 
in this preliminary work (cf.,e. g., CTL. IX, p. xi). From this 
early period comes, for instance, the well-known classification of 
all previous collectors in three categories: (1) the honest and 
careful, (2) the dishonest, and (8) the negligent, credulous, or 
ignorant. The principle of classification adopted for the second 
group is Calvinistic in its severity. One demonstrated lapse from 
honesty on the part of a collector condemns every inscription for 
which the scholar in question is our only direct source of infor- 
mation. The sweeping character of this critical rule is probably 
responsible for putting many authentic inscriptions in the sus- 
pected list, and some cases of this sort have already come to light 
(cf. CIL. VI. 5, pp. 253*-55*). It would seem desirable soon 
to examine these lists in the several volumes systematically in the 
light of new discoveries and of our increased knowledge, in the 
hope of rescuing authentic inscriptions from their present position 
among the suspected or condemned. That the principle under- 
lying the second grouping of collectors does not lean toward lenity 
seems to be indicated also by the fact that no inscription regarded 
by the editors of the Corpus as authentic has been condemned later. 

The most prolific forgers in the period from Felicianus to 
Chabassiére were Boissard, Gutenstein, Ligorio, Lupoli, Roselli, 
and Trigueros. The names—French, German, Italian, and Span- 
ish—indicate, as observed above, that scholars of all the principal 
continental countries were guilty of this offense. The devious 


26 FRANK Frost ABBOTT 


methods of Francisco Roselli are especially hard to follow because 
he at the same time forged some inscriptions and copied many other 
authentic ones, but copied them carelessly. His collection, which 
was made up partly of inscriptions from Grumentum, was pub- 
lished in 1790, and Mommeen, finding it very difficult to make a 
. correct estimate of his work from the published collection, went to 
Grumentum in 1846 to study his method of procedure. He found 
that the people of Grumentum regarded Roselli as their most dis- 
tinguished citizen, and they gave their visitor all the help they could 
to make the fame of their fellow-townsman known as widely as 
possible. Mommsen’s embarrassment when he discovered the true 
character of Roselli and had to publish the facts is best indicated 
in his own words (CIL. X, p. 28): “Grumenti autem qui studia 
mea adiuverunt viri optimi, quorum memoriam grato et pio animo 
recolo, nolint mihi irasci, quod libere de Rosellio locutus sum et 
verus magis esse volui quam gratiosus.” Among other pecul- 
iarities Roselli’s MS shows some very interesting afterthoughts. 
In one case (CIL. X. 485) he forged an inscription in honor of © 
a certain Q. Attius in which the people of his native town were 
characterized as Bruttii, but, finding later that they were really of 
Lucanian origin, he revised his inscription by dropping out the 
line in which the Bruttian origin was mentioned. 

Roselli’s purpose was apparently to bring distinction to himself 
and his native town. Gutenstein’s motive was more altruistic. 
He was Gruter’s amanuensis and not only reported authentic 
inscriptions to his master but also forged others to gratify Gruter’s 
intense desire for additions to his collection. Many of his inscrip- 
tions he pretended to have found in the collections of Metellus 
and Smetius. His dishonesty was discovered when these collec- 
tions were examined and Gutenstein’s inscriptions were not found 
among them (cf. ΟἿΣ, VI. 5. 3226*-3239*; Bormann Eph. Epigr. 
III, p. 72). His epigraphical style is well illustrated by 
Mommeen in Eph. Epigr, I, pp. 67-75. One of the inscriptions 
there quoted is in honor of Septimius Severus. Another reads 
as follows: DDD. nnn. | Valentiniano Valenti et | Gratiano 
Auggg | piis felicibus ac | semper triumfator. | signum Herculi 
vict. | ob prov....|rect....{| ampli....| votis X | 

. is xx. On these two Mommsen remarks (p. 68): “primae 


Some Spurious INSORIPTIONS AND THEIR AUTHORS 27 


honores honorumque iterationes tam facile explanabis quam 
Geryoni aptabis petasum; in secunda imperatores tres intemeratae 
Christianitatis signumque Herculis victoris simul splendent tam- 
quam in eodem caelo Sol et Luna.” 

The method of Lupoli, a bishop at Venusia, was to take inscrip- 
tions from the collections of Gruter and Fabretti, add a few genu- 
ine ones of his own, and forge others to complete his collection. 
His work is characterized by the stern indignation which he 
expresses at the inaccuracy and dishonesty of other epigraphists. 

In the Rh. Mus. XVII (1862), pp. 228 ff., Habner tells in a 
graphic way how he unmasked Trigueros. The conduct of the 
Spanish epigraphist was peculiarly and ingeniously perfidious, 
because he attributed his own forged inscriptions to a scholar of a 
previous generation who was probably a creation of his own 
imagination. He had already taken a similar course in the case 
of a piece of literature forged by him, so that this method of pro- 
cedure must have appealed to his malicious sense of humor. 

But the prince of forgers was the Neapolitan Pirro Ligorio of 
the sixteenth century. In a burst of indignant admiration de 
Rossi characterizes him (Inscr. Chr. urbis Romae, p. xvii*) as 
‘‘magnus 1116 fallaciarum opifex et parens.’’ Ligorio held a very 
distinguished position among the scholars and artists of his day, 
was the friend of Smetius, Pighius, and Panvinius, and succeeded 
Michelangelo in supervising the work at St. Peter’s. The 
Vatican library has twelve manuscript volumes from his hand, the 
Barberini ten, and the library at Turin, at least up to the time of 
the late injury to that collection by fire, thirty more. Of the 3,643 
spurious inscriptions which CIL. VI, pt. 5, contains, 2,995 
emanate from Ligorio. His audacity is incredible. Many of his 
forgeries he pretended to have found in the gardens or libraries of 
well-known houses in Rome (cf. CIL. VI, pt. 1, p. lii, col. 1), and as 
a rule he mentions the exact location, e. g., he locates VI. 1460* 
“dentro la chiesa di San Nicola di Cavalieri in via Florida presso 
della Calcare.” Sometimes he gives an airy description of the 
supposed monument, as in VI. 1463*, “in essa si vede la imagine 
della Gorgona et pare che gli volano a destra et a sinistra due 
farfalle. Con un festone di frutti.” Sometimes he based his 


28 FrRaNK Frost ABBOTT 


productions on a single authentic inscription (cf. VI. 1819* and 
VI. 1409); sometimes he combined two authentic inscriptions 
(cf. VI. 1866* and VI. 1739, 1764), but more frequently he 
forged outright. His versatility in the matter of content and 
form is extraordinary. He treats a great variety of subjects, 
combines Greek and Latin (e.g., VI. 1653*), composes a frag- 
mentary inscription (e. g., VI. 1665*), imitates the illiterate, as 
in using the form ongentarius (VI. 2066*), and indulges in such 
paleographical novelties as ligatures (e. g., VI. 1657*) or heart- 
shaped separation points (e. g., VI. 2079*). He carried his work 
even to the point of carving more than one hundred of his for- 
geries on stone, most of them for the museum of his patron the 
Cardinal of Carpi. Some of these have been discussed by Henzen 
in the Comm. in hon. Mommseni, p. 627 ff. His inscriptions had 
been suspected by a number of scholars, but their spurious char- 
acter was first clearly shown by Olivieri at a meeting of a learned 
society in Ravenna in 1764 (cf. Inscr. Lat. sel., ed. Orelli, I, 
pp. 48-54). 

Most of the prolific epigraphical forgers have some idiosyncra- 
sies or some stylistic peculiarities, or they are ignorant in some 
specific field of the Latin language or of Roman life, and these 
weaknesses not infrequently betray them. Gutenstein, for instance, 
in copying an inscription from a previous collector, had the strange 
habit of making some slight change ina title or a date, as Momm- 
sen has shown in Eph. Epigr. I, p. 71. Thus, for example, he 
changes pretatis Imperatoris Caesaris to pietati et felicitats ump. 
Caes., and 111 idus Maias appears in his copy as VI id. Febr., 
although if is impossible to see why he made the alteration. 
Ligorio’s tendencies and the points at which he is ignorant are 
brought out very clearly by Henzen in Comm. in hon. Mommsent, 
pp. 627 ff. He is weak in the syntax of the cases and not infre- 
quently puts the accusative after the preposition a or ab, he is not 
familiar with the Roman system of nomenclature and, conse- 
quently, confuses nomina and cognomina, gives a slave a nomen, 
or adds servus to the name of a freedman. His two fads are to 
put an apex over the preposition 4, and to coin titles of the type d 
potione, to which he is prone to add a word that changes altogether 


Some Spurious INSORIPTIONS AND THEIR AUTHORS 29 


the meaning of these stereotyped expressions; cases in point are 
faber d Corinthis, and d balnea custos. The editors of the Corpus 
have studied the stylistic characteristics of these two men with 
such care that Mommsen (op. cit., p. 75) can say with truth: 
“a Ligorianis autem Gutensteniana qui artem callet non minus 
certo nec difficilius separabit quam qui poetis Latinis operam 
dederunt Vergiliana ab Ovidianis distinguunt.” 

The true character of most of the forgeries was not discovered 
until long after they had been made. In the meantime they were 
copied into new collections by scholars all over the world, who 
often failed to indicate the source from which they had borrowed, 
and one of the most laborious tasks which the editors of the Corpus 
have had to perform is in tracing an inscription back through 
manuscript and printed collections to a Lupoli or a Ligorio. Thus 
VI. 2942*, forged by Ligorio, was borrowed by Panvinius, taken 
from him by Donius, and finally found its way into Muratori. 
Not infrequently forgers have been deceived by the inventions of 
other forgers. Ruggieri published IX. 180* from Mirabella. In 
the fourth line of Ruggieri’s copy stood prov. apuliae. The 
unscrupulous Pratilli took the inscription from Ruggieri, but 
changed the two words mentioned to proc. apuliae, and finally 
Lupoli in his collection edited proc. apuliae, but later without 
comment changed the reading to corr. apuliae. The motive which 
actuated most forgers was a desire to win distinction by the number 
or importance of their discoveries; some of them wished to prove 
a point, or to establish the antiquity of their own families. This 
last motive accounts for Lupoli’s invention of IX. 157*: C. Baebius 
Lu | pulus. et C. Baebius Lupul. f | Silvano. deo | vot. 8. 1. m. 

It may not be out of place to give a few of the spurious inscrip- 
tions which are most interesting in themselves or show a feeling 
for the picturesque or a sense of humor on the part of the forger. 
In VI. 3489* we have the epitaph of Mithradates which reads: 
Haec est effigies regis | magni Mithradatis divi | tis et summi 
pauperis et | tenui hic positum horarum | rationes reddere cogit | 
post obitum nullum | tempus habere doces. The monument which 
Hannibal set up on the field of Cannae for Paulus Aemilius bore 
this epitaph: Annibal Pauli Aemilii Romanorum consulis apud 


30 Frank Frost ABBOTT 


Cannas trucidati conquisitum corpus inhumatum iacere passus 
non est; summo cum honore Romanis militibus mandavit sub hoc 
marmore reponendum et ossa eius ad urbem deportanda, IX. 99*. 
This is the passport which Caesar gave Cicero: C. Caesar M. T. 
Ciceronem ob egregias eius virtutes singularesque animi dotes per 
universum orbem virtute nostra armisque perdomitum salvum et 
incolumem esse iubemus, VI. 81*. We should have no hesitation 
in assigning this inscription to Sept. 47 3B. Ο., and we owe its 
anonymous composer a debt of gratitude for bringing up in so con- 
crete a way the memory of that dramatic meeting of the conqueror 
and the conquered at Tarentum or Brundisium, at the close of a 
long year of anxious and frightened waiting—a meeting of which 
no other record has survived. The inscription, however, whose 
spurious character we admit with the greatest reluctance is VI. 
3403*, which purports to contain fragments, eleven in all, from 
the Acta diurna of the second and first centuries before our era. 
The composition seems to go back to the close of the sixteenth 
century, and is perhaps to be traced to Ludovicus Vives (cf. 
Heinze De spuriis actorum diurnorum fragmentis). It passed 
unquestioned through the hands of a number of distinguished 
scholars, Lipsius, Pighius, Camerarius, Graevius, and Vossius, and 
its authenticity was vigorously defended as late as the middle of 
the last century. It aroused the special interest of British 
scholars. John Locke called the attention of Graevius to it about 
the end of the seventeenth century, and Dodwell devoted himself 
particularly to its explanation and defense. How cleverly it was 
composed, so far as content goes, and how valuable it would be, 
were it authentic, may be illustrated by an extract from the year 
586 a. νυ. ο.: IV Κι. Aprileis fasceis penes Licinium | fulguravit 
tonuit et quercus tacta in | summa Velia paullum a meridie | rixa 
ad Ianum infimum in caupona et | caupo ad ursum galeatum 
graviter | sauciatus | C. Titinius aed. pl. mulcavit lanios | quod 
carnem vendidissent populo | non inspectam | de pecunia mul- 
catitia cella exstructa | ad Telluris Lavernae. This whole compo- 
sition, in fact, is the chef d’ceuvre of the epigraphical forger’s art, 
and reminds one of the missing chapters of Petronius which Nodot 
cleverly composed and gave to the world a century later. 


THE VERBS depo, αἴρωυ, AND ἄρνυμαι 
By Norman W. DeWrrt 


The aim of the following paper is to make clear the following 
points: (1) that αἴρω and ἀείρω were originally distinctly different 
words from different roots; (2) that the meaning of αἴρω is go, 
move, start, rise, or set in motion, begin, raise, rouse; that it is 
cognate with Skt. ;’ar, to go, move, tend upward; (3) that ἀεέρω 
goes back to a root fepo- cognate with L. verro, and Skt. varsa. 
At the end are discussed three passages in Sophocles: Ajax 191 
and 247, and Trach. 491; also Iliad xiv. 509; upon all of which 
Mr. Jebb has made remarks in his appendix to the Ajaz. 

It is needless to say much concerning authorities. All the 
lexica from Stephanus to Liddell and Scott consider the three 
words to contain the same root. A like statement is repeated in 
handbooks such as that of Veitch, and even Jebb, who cleared up 
some obscure points, left an unexplained residue. For our paper 
a complete examination has been made of the classical literature 
through special lexica and by reading. Later authors like Apol- 
lonius Rhodius did not observe distinctions that we shall point out. 

depo: The initial a is considered prothetic and a digamma 
seems certain: ἀρείρω (Alc. 5. 63 ἀρειρομέναι). Lesbian ἀέρρω is 
taken to indicate a previous aeprw (Brug. Comp. Gr., Eng. ed., 
4, 246) but more probably it looks to an original ps. Thus we 
have, leaving off the a, an original root fepo-, which is found also 
in the lone Homeric aorist ἀπόερσα for amd-fepoa, sweep away, 
used only of a swollen river or torrent, 17]. vi. 348 and xxi. 288 
and 329. This is the connecting link with L. verro for *vorso, 
sweep, Skt. varshatt, rains, varsha, rain. With the latter belongs 
Dor. époa for repoa, dew, Cretic ἄερσα for afepoa with prothetic 
a like aefpw. Whether ἀήρ for ἀρήρ, mist, is to be brought in, is 
not so certain but it certainly influenced the meaning of ἀείρω, as 
will be shown presently. Germ. ver-wirren, OHG wirru, O. 
Bul. vrigetu, thrashes, are certainly cognates. The change from 
ἀέρσω to adppw is likely to be questioned and evidence is scant. 


(CLassicaL PxILo.oay III, January, 1908] 3] 


32 Norman W. DeWirt 


Yet the change is well enough known elsewhere: L. ferra for 
*tersa, torreo for *torseo, Gr. τέρσομαι. The history of ps in 
Greek is still obscure. In other languages of the I-E. group 
roots containing this combination are common enough and it 
remains for someone to find out what became of them in Hellas. 
A connection between χείρω and xdépon might be suspected; KZ. 
XXIX, p. 128. Once we reach ἀέρρω, however, it is easy to pass 
to ἀεέρω, as ἐγένσατο gives ἐγέννατο and then ἐγείνατο, τενέω τέννω 
and τείνων The analogy of words of the latter class was especially 
strong and it is not unlikely that a word like ἀέρρω was drawn into it. 

As regards the meaning, it is likely that Skt. varshati, rains, is 
the oldest. Next comes the Homeric amdepoa, swept away, used 
of swollen torrents, and then L. verro, sweep. The Greek aelpw 
from the meaning sweep away, remove, could easily pass to the 
idea of lifting, even before the influence of aipw began to work 
upon it. This occurred as soon as the digamma was lost. Simi- 
larity of meaning and similarity of form then worked in the same 
direction and it is no wonder that they were felt to be one and 
the same. 

It is to be noted that ἀείρω, except in few instances, is used 
concretely, while αἴρω has an extensive use in the realm of the emo- 
tions such as fear, pride, arrogance, courage, folly, and the like. 
Further, ἀείρω is never used in the sense of ἄρνυμαι except in late 
authors like Apollonius Rhodius. Something of the earlier use 
of ἀείρω may be seen perhaps in Homer: μῆλα γὰρ ἐξ ᾿Ιθάκης 
Μεσσήνιοι ἄνδρες ἄειραν, Od. xxi. 18. 

The lexicography of ἀείρω shows, besides the legitimate mean- 
ing carry off, bear, lift, raise, also forces clearly due to the influ- 
ence of αἴρω: (1) Of emotion rarely and only in lyric poetry: — 
νόον δὲ πάμπαν aéppe, Alc. 33; οἶνον ἀερσίνοον, Ion 6. (2) To 
begin, undertake, a quarrel, war. Very τατθ-:--- πόλεμον ἀειρά- 
μενοι, Herod. vii. 182 and 156; νεῖκος ἀειράμενος, Theog. 90 and 
1082 f. (3) κῦδος ἀειραμένη, Kaibel Epigram. 904. 2, on the 
model of Homeric κῦδος ἠράμην from ἄρνυμαι, has no good sanc- 
tion though common in post-classical poetry. (4) The aor. 
part. pass. is used like ἀρθείς (q. v. below) in the sense set out, 
begin a journey:—évOaira ἀερθέντες οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπαλλάσσοντο, 


THE VERBS ἀεέρω, αἴρω, AND ἄρνυμαι 83 


Herod. ix. 52, cf. i. 165, 170; the present once in Homer, 1}. xxi. 
563, μή μ᾽ ἀπαειρόμενον πόλιος πεδίονδε νοήσῃ. 

In an unrecognized use as a pass. dep. ἀεέρομαι seems to show the 
influence of an association with ἀήρ, like its rare equivalent nepé- 
θομαι, float in the air, to be unsteady like air. ἀείρομαι, pass. dep. 
to soar, hover in the atr, float in the air, to rise, used of birds, dust, 
waves, rearing horses:—o δ᾽ (aterds) és αἰθέρα δῖαν adpOn, Od. xix. 
540; horses, ὑψόσ᾽ ἀειρόμενοι, Od. xiii. 83; dust, ποδῶν δ᾽ ὑπένερθε 
κονίη ἵστατ᾽ ἀειρομένη, Il. ii. 151, xxiii. 366, Simon. 11. _ A trop- 
ical use, Soph. Trach. 216, ἀείρομαι, “my spirit soars” (Jebb). 

αἴρω: It has been pointed out by Brugmann (KZ. XXVII, 
p. 197) that aipw cannot be a contraction of ἀείρω, which would 
give ἄρω as ἀείδω gives ἄδω. The root is ap (αρ-ω), the same that 
appears in dp-vu-yar; Skt. )/ar to go, move, tend upward; Greek 
causative with strengthened root ὄρ-νυ-με, to stir up, send forth. 
Other cognates are alpa, hammer, ἐρέτης, rower, lit. propeller; L. 
remus, oar; Lth. ir-ti, row, ar-ti, plow, Eng. rudder, OHG ruo- 
dar, AS ar, Goth. argan. 

The root expresses motion, which in αἴρω is conceived as begin- 
ning or as caused, the latter force belonging chiefly to the causa- 
tive ὄρνυμε but also abundantly exemplified in the lexicography of 
αἴρω, as will be shown below. In ἄρνυμαι the motion is conceived 
as ending or arriving, like the Sanskrit rndmi, to meet with, attain, 
reach. The intransitive use of αἴρω, which L. & 8. grudge to 
acknowledge, is also common both for the simple verb and for 
ἀπαίρω; the meaning is set out, depart. In classical Greek the 
notion of motion upward, of lifting predominated and cast into 
idioms of more ancient standing a new feeling. Thus aiper@a 
πόλεμον, which first meant to start a war, occasionally may seem 
' to signify faking up the burdenofawar. Yet in αἴρεσθαι φώνην 
to utter voice, Skt. zyarti vdcam, there is only the original force. 
So in αἴρονται φυγήν, Aes. Pers. 481, ‘begin flight.’ 

The primary meaning is exemplified by the intransitive use in 
the signification, set out, start, either by land or sea. The greater 
frequency of the sea in this connection is only a matter of geogra- 
phy. The notion that we are to think of raising an anchor is 
unsupported by any instance where the object is expressed, implies 


84 ΝΌΟΒΜΑΝ W. DeWitt 


a symbolic significance in the act not familiar to the Greek mind, 
and fails to explain the idiom when not connected with journeys 
by sea. Examples are plentiful. Typical is Thucyd. ii. 23. 3: 
. ἄραντες τῇ παρασκευῇ ταύτῃ περιέπλεον. Of. id. ii. 25. 3, 56. 6, 
108. 1; iii. 91. 8, 106. 1. 

For ἀπαίρω we cite: ἄπαιρε, be off, Eur. Her. 67; ὡς ἀπαίρωμεν 
χθονός, Cyc. 131; cf. I. A. 664, Med. 938, 1. T. 511, Tro. 944, 
Hel. 1670, Rhes. 143. Cf. also peralpw, migrate, of birds. 
Eumath., p. 129, cf. N. T. Matth. 13. 53. 

Transitively the primary meaning was to set in motion, to begin, 
undertake (mid.): ἄραι στόλον, to set a host in motion, Aes. 
Pers. 795, Agam. 47; Eur. Hec. 1141, cf. Eur. Elec. 2: ἄρας 
“Apn; begin, ἐκ τερμάτων δὲ νόστον ἀροῦμεν πάλιν, 1. T. 117. 
Begin, undertake a war or perilous enterprise: Dem. xiv. 3, 
πόλεμον ἄρασθαι; Lysias 2. 14, κίνδυνον ἤραντο. Both expressions 
are very common in good prose and poetry. If the enterprise is 
felt to be a burden, this feeling is secondary, due to the drift of the 
verb toward the meaning lift, take up. 

From moving we pass easily to removing, carrying, enduring, 
and that not necessarily through an intermediate stage of lifting. 
ws εἴδοντο νέκυν αἴροντας ᾿Αχαίους, 1]. xvii. 724, “ bearing the body,” 
οἱ δὲ τὸν Βρασίδαν ἄραντες, Thucyd. v. 11, “those who carried B. 
off the field.” ἄρον ἔξω, Soph. Trach. 799, “carry me out of the 
island.” οἱ μὲν σφαγεῖον ἔφερον οἱ δὲ ἦρον κανᾶ, Eur. El. 800, 
ἄθλον ἄρας, Trach. 80, ‘having endured this toil.” By the ori- 
ginal force is to be explained ἀρθείς in the meaning set out, dart 
forth, used of birds. ἀπ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης περιμήκεος ἀρθείς͵ 7]. 
xiii. 63; ἀρθεὶς Snir’ ἀπὸ Λευκάδος πέτρης, Anacr. 15; cf. Eur. 
Bacch, 748, ἀρθείς, Soph. Ant. 111, “‘having set forth,’ like an 
eagle” (Jebb). In στόλον ἀρθέντα, Aes. Supp. 2, the meaning is 
more probably ‘“‘despatched,” cf. ὧραι στόλον above. 

We are helped in proving our thesis by the uses of the 2 aor. 
ἠρόμην and at the same time our thesis brings welcome light: ποδοῖν 
κλοπὰν ἀρέσθαι, Soph. Az. 247, “to begin a stealthy flight;” cf. 
Pind. Ne. 7. 87, both of which will be discussed below. 

Gpvupat: ἄρνυμαι contains the root ap of αἴρω (for "αρ-ω) in 
the sense go, move, but shows a different present formation, ap-vu- 


THE VERBS ἀεέρω, αἴρω, AND ἄρνυμαι 35 


μαι. The object of ἄρνυμαι is the place where the motion ends or 
arrives and consequently it will be better to define its meaning as 
meet with, arrive at, reach, attain, win, rather than the receive 
for oneself, reap, win, earn, gain of L. & S. It looks rather to 
a reward of fate than to wages for work and it is not used with 
μισθόν before Plato. 

To ἄρνυμαι belongs the fut. ἀροῦμαι with short initial ἃ and 
with ἄρνυμαι it should go in the lexicon, not under aipw, which 
has long initial ἃ in the same tense, apd. There are two aorists 
ἠράμην and ἠρόμην which, so far as form is concerned, may belong 
to either present, alpw or ἄρνυμαι. Yet in usage they clearly 
separated as follows: 

In the Attic literature the 1 aor. ἠράμην belongs exclusively to 
αἴρομαι; in non-Attic literature ἠράμην belongs all but exclusiyely to 
ἄρνυμαι. The 2 aor. is not used at all in prose and in all but a few 
examples bears the sense of ἄρνυμαι. Moreover there is no instance 
in which we need to assume that the meaning took up for himself 
passed over into won. ἄρνυμαι is therefore a deponent verb 
equipped with pres. and imp., fut., and aorist tenses, the latter 
being simultaneously used as aorists of aipopas. 

All these tenses are bound together by the same group of ob- 
jects such as κλέος and κῦδος, which occur most frequently, εὖχος, 
νίκην, δόξαν, τιμήν, γέρας, and χάριν; also words denoting prizes 
and other coveted things. In tragedy alone by a kind of irony, 
it is used of the opposites of these shame, trouble, ingratitude. 

The lexicography of ἄρνυμαι will be about as follows: 

To arrive at, reach, attain, win, especially fame, honor, victory, grati- 
tude, prizes; in tragedy the opposites, shame, sorrow, ingratitude.—Pres. 
and Imp.: A score of examples in Homer, Sappho, tragedy, Plato and 
Aristotle: ἀρνύμενος ἦν τε ψυχὴν καὶ νόστον ἑταίρων, Od. i. 5; τιμὴν dpvipevos, 
Il. i. 169; λέχος ἄρνυσο νεώτερον, Sappho 47; μισθὸν ἄρνυσθαι, Plato Prot. 
849a. The last use is found only in Plato and Aristotle: Legg. vii. 8186, 
Rep. i. 346c, Pol. y 16a. 36.—Fut. ἀρέομαι πὰρ μὲν Σαλαμῖνος χάριν μισθόν, 
Pind. Py. i. 75; κλέος ἀρεῖ, Plato Legg. 969a. τῇδε τῇ πόλει μέγαν σωτῆρ᾽ 
ἀρεῖσθε, τοῖς δὲ γῆς ἐχθροῖς πόνους, Soph. O. C. 460; ἀρεῖσθε πένθος, O. R. 
1225, “win sorrow for your prize;” cf. Eur. Hec. 1074.—1 Aor.: In best 
poets only in Indic.; chiefly in Homer: μέγα κλέος ἤρατο, Od. i. 240; 
ἤρατο κῦδος, Il. iii. 873; apavro yap νίκας, Pind. Is. δ. 60, cf. Bacchyl. 
2. 5.—The use of the participle, as in the following, has no good author- 
ity: πανκράτιον ἀράμενος, Kaibel 944. 4.—2 Aor. rare in Indic. Used for 


36 Norman W. DEWITT 


metrical reasons in preference to the 1 aor. in other moods: τὴν ἀρόμην, 
Ml. xxiii. 592; of ἀέθλια ποσσὶν dpovro, Il. ix. 266.—Subj. ἵν’ ὑπέρτερον εὖχος 
ἄρησθε, Il. xi. 290; ἵνα κλέος ἐσθλὸν dono, Hesiod Sc. 107; dpyra κῦδος, 
Pindar Js. 1. 50.—Opt. frequent: viv δέ κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἀροίμην.--- ἄροισθε 
κῦδος, Aes. Sept. 316; προεδρίην ἄροιτο, Xenophanes 2. 7.—Inf. κῦδος ἀρέσθαι, 
especially frequent as a hexameter ending; κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν 
ἀρέσθαι, Theoc. 14. 117, following epic usage; cf. Pindar Ol. 9. 102. 

The best account’ of the verbs αἴρω, ἄρνυμαι, and ἀεέρω from the 
point of view of usage is to be found in Jebb’s appendix to the 
Ajax, p. 217(1896). Jebb points out that the fut. of αἴρω is apw 
with long initial ἃ while the fut. mid. ὡροῦμαι with short & belongs 
to ἄρνυμαι; that the unaugmented forms of the aorists ἦρα and 
ἠράμην have long initial a, while the 2 aor. ἠρόμην has short initial 
ἃ in the same parts; and lastly that the fut. ἀροῦμαι and the 2 aor. 
ἠρόμην belong to ἄρνυμαι, and that αἴρομαι, although metrically 
equivalent to ἄρνυμαι, is never used in the sense ‘win.’ He also 
casts doubt on the persisting idea that the sense of winning in 
ἀροῦμαι and ἠρόμην is derived from taking up for oneself. 

Yet Mr. Jebb has a residue which his data do not explain. He 
also still thinks that αἴρω is a contracted form of defpw, which 
Brugmann (loc. cit.) has shown it cannot be, and he knows no 
meaning to explain the uses of aipw except raise or lift. Further, 
he does not recognize that both ἠράμην and ἠρόμην look now to 
. αἴρομαι, now to ἄρνυμαι for their signification. Take for example 
v. 191 of the Ajaz, which has always seemed difficult to annotators, 
μὴ. . .. κακὰν φάτιν ἄρῃ. (a). Of this he says (p. 219): 
“Though ἄρῃ may fitly be rendered ‘win,’ ‘acquire,’ the word 
may primarily refer to ‘taking up the burden of an evil name.’”’ 
Still easier is it to put this expression in the category with the 
common πόλεμον, νεῖκος ἄρασθαι, to begin, undertake, set in motion. 
Moreover φάτις is a nomen actionis, a sort of Fama, ‘malum qua 
non aliud velocius ullum.’ The fear is that he may to his sorrow 
‘set evil rumors going.’ This interpretation may be braced by 
Dem. xxi. 132, τὸν ἔχθραν τηλικαύτην ἀράμενον, ‘the man who | 
made himself so hated,’ lit. ‘who caused or occasioned such hatred.’ 
The middle voice in such cases is ethical, implying the reaction 
of difficulty or danger upon the agent. 


1 Written apparently because of the criticism of Capps (review of Jebb’s Trachiniae, 
Class. Rev. VIII, 1894, p. 408), at whose suggestion the present study was undertaken. 


THE VERBS ἀείρω, αἴρω, AND ἄρνυμαι 8m 


Again, in his discussion of Ajax 247, ποδοῖν κλοπὰν ἀρέσθαι, 
Mr. Jebb did not get down to the quick. He rightly puts it 
beside αἴρεσθαι φυγήν Aes. Pers. 481, but this does not neces- 
sarily mean ‘take up,’ ‘betake oneself to,’ although of course the 
latter does make sense. It goes back to the original force of αἴρω, 
start, begin; flight is motion. The Ajax line then means ‘to 
begin a stealthy flight,’ the mid. voice as usual hinting at personal 
risk. The use of ἀρέσθαι where the 1 aor. would be usual has 
unquestionable authority; cf. Pindar Ne. 7. ὅθ, τόλμαν τε καλῶν 
ἀρομένῳ, which might be annotated by τολμήσαντι αἴρεσθαι καλά; 
the common prose expression κένδυνον ἄρασθαι differs from Pindar’s 
formula only as prose from poetry. Other examples of the second 
aorist, where the first would be expected by an Athenian Greek, are: 
Il. xx. 246, xxiv. 189, Od. xiv. 295, Hes. Op. 632, Theoc. v. 20. 

In his discussion of another line Mr. Jebb speaks without all 
the pertinent data, ἀνδράγρι᾽ ᾿Αχαιῶν ἤρατο, Il. xiv.509. Weare 
here by no means forced to the interpretation ‘took up for him- 
self.’ The 1 aor. ἠράμην is freely used in non-Attic poetry in the 
sense ‘won,’ chiefly with such objects as κῦδος, κλέος, νίκη, δόξα 
and words like that in the example denoting prizes or rewards. 
ἠράμεθα μέγα κῦδος, Il. xxii. 393, cf. xviii. 165, iii. 375, Pind. 
Is. 5. 60, Bacchyl. 2. 5, Simon. 145, Xenophanes 5, Od. i. 240, 
xiv. 370, xxiv. 33. In all these ἠἡράμην is simply the aorist of 
ἄρνυμαι, and it may be insisted that in non-Attic poetry ἠράμην is 
almost confined to this use and to this class of objects, while in 
Attic literature it belongs without exception to αὔρομαι. This line 
of division eliminates the necessity and possibility of ambiguous 
interpretations. Corroborative evidence is the fact that the aor. 
ἀειράμην is not used in the sense ‘win,’ which would be almost cer- 
tain to occur if ἠράμην in this meaning came from αὔρομαι. 
L. ἃ S.’s πάντας ἀειράμενος πελέκεας͵ Il. xxiii. 856, is not in point 
and is followed by φερέσθω, which limits the participle to the idea 
of ‘gathering up’ the twenty axes. 

Mr. Jebb had examined the uses of these verbs more closely 
when he wrote the appendix to the Ajaz than when he prepared the 
note to Trach. 491, where he says “the simple αἴρομαι is often used 
with reference either to winning a prize or taking up a burden.” 


88 Norman W. ὈΕΎΙΤΤ 


This statement he retracts in the appendix to the Ajaz, p. 218. 

Tr. 491: κοῦτοι νόσον γ᾽ ἐπακτὸν ἐξαρούμεθα | θεοῖσι δνυσμαχοῦντες. 
To fix the meaning οὗ this line we seem to have nothing but the 
aor. ἐξήρατο used by Homer, Pindar, and Theocritus. Four out 
of five examples are alike and refer to the rewards of war or games. 

Od. 589: πόλλ᾽, ὅσ᾽ ἂν οὐδέ ποτε Τροίης ἐξήρατ᾽ ᾿Οδυσσεύς 

εἴ περ ἀπήμων ἦλθε, λαχὼν ἀπὸ ληίδος αἶσαν. 

Of. Od. xiii. 181, Pind. Ol. 9. 10, Theoc. 24.120. Now in Trach. 
491 we have a war, ‘a hopeless war against the gods.’ The prize 
tragically conceived will be ‘an infliction self-inflicted.’ This kind 
of irony pleases the tragedians and especially Sophocles. See 
lexicography of ἄρνυμαι above. We cannot think with Jebb of a 
‘burden.’ The mid. ἐξαίρομαι is hardly used in prose and the 
poets fix its meaning for tragedy. This was ‘carried off,’ ‘bore 
away,’ as is indicated by the prep. ἐξ- and by the gen. of place from 
which, Τροίης above. Once, Od. x. 84, we find ἐξήρατο μισθούς, 
which helps us out, for μεσθός in prose and poetry is usual with 
φέρεσθαι and ἐκφέρεσθαι; cf. μισθοφόροι. The simple aor. ἤρατο 
in Homer is used in the sense ‘endured,’ which implies the concrete 
meaning ‘bore’: ὅσσα ᾿Οδυσσεύς ἐμόγησε καὶ ἤρατο, Od. iv. 107. 

One more statement of Mr. Jebb concerning this verb may be 
questioned. In his note to Phil. 1881, ἕως ἂν αὑτὸς ἥλιος ταύτῃ 
μὲν αἴρῃ, τῇδε δ᾽ av δύνῃ πάλιν, he says there seems to be no other 
classical instance of this intransitive use. Smyth in his Meltc 
Poets has added an example for ἀείρω, Alc. 5. 63 (4. 68 Smyth), 
and I can adduce one for aipw which is especially interesting in 
connection with this line of Sophocles. It occurs in Plato Phaedr. 
248, τότε μὲν ἦρε τότε δὲ dv. There is nothing surprising in this. 
The intransitive use is abundantly evidenced in the meaning set 
out both for αἴρω and ἀπαίρω, while μεταίρω offers an example or 
two. Moving upward is simply a specialization of the root- 
meaning move, well illustrated by the Sanskrit cognate, 7//ar, to 
go, move, tend upward. Beside the example from Plato we may 
place Aristotle 475a 8, and for ἀείρω Aes. Sept. 759. In all these 
cases it will be observed that the opposition of an intransitive verb 
defines the meaning. 

_ Miami UNIVERSITY 


THE WORD-GROUP ACCENT IN LATIN HEXAMETER 
By ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


In the first part of this discussion (Class. Phil. II, pp. 51 ff.) 
I have attempted to show that in certain kinds of metre the first 
of two short syllables forming the integral part of a foot receives 
the accent. In Saturnian verse the rule isinvariable. In comedy 
it presents comparatively few exceptions. It has been found to 
prevail in the second and third feet of hexameter in the types of 
words already examined. This paper will be devoted mainly toa 
consideration of the relation of the accent to the ictus in those 
cases which involve a dissyllable with the first syllable short, or a 
monosyllable, i. e., words which may lose their accent when they 
form a part of a word-group. 

In considering word-group accent, which comes under the more 
general head of sentence-accent, I wish to make two citations, the 
truth of which I trust will be illustrated by my conclusions. 
Brugmann (Vergl. Gramm. I’, p. 976) in speaking of the problem 
of the coincidence of accent and ictus says that it is not a question 
of the word-accent but of the sentence-accent. ‘‘Berficksichtigt 
man diesen, so schwinden viele Discrepanzen, die man frfiher 
nicht zu beseitigen vermochte.”” Munro (Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc. 
X, pp. 64, 382) states that “the influence of the accent is more 
perceptible in the Augustan and later poets than in the earlier.” 

A sentence is divided phonetically, not into words, syllables, 
and letters, but into stress-groups, syllables, and sounds, A stress- 
group in the wider sense may have one main accent and one or 
more secondary accents, or this larger stress-group may be con- 
ceived as consisting of shorter stress-groups, each having its own 
accent. Thus give me the book may be considered as one stress- 
group with the main accent on give and a secondary accent on 
book, or as two stress-groups give me the bdok. Thus in Latin 
we may have festinantem dnimam as one stress-group, or festt- 
ndntem dnimam as two, or féstindntem dnimam as three.’ Whether 


10f. supra, pp. 69 f. 
([CiassicaL PHILOLoGY ITI, January, 1908] 39 


40 ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


a given phrase shall be treated as one stress-group or more depends 
on the thought, and a change of stress involves a change in the 
shade of thought.’ 

Brugmann says (loc. cit., p. 875) “Nur im Zusammenhang der 
Rede hat das Wort sein wahres Leben,” and the same may be said 
of accent. In verse the word-group accent must be taken into 
account as well as the word-accent. 

In regard to the accent of the word-group it is to be noted: 

1. That there is not a definite line of demarkation between a 
compound, and a word-group united under one accent.’ The 
formation of a compound is often favored by the existence of a 
word-group united under one accent.’ 

2. That even the most stereotyped word-groups do not exactly 
correspond in their use to single words. The type et égo is more 
common in comedy than genére.* Though these word-groups 
approach the unity of a single word they are subject to phonetic 
laws which do not apply to individual words.’ 

3. That there is not a definite line of demarkation between a 
word-group united under one accent, and a similar combination 
not so united. Thus in the middle of the verse in comedy we 
have matrém meam and mdtrem méam.° In other words, these 
groups differ in regard to the unity to which they attain, and the 
same combination of words may be treated in one case as a word- 
group united under one accent, and in another, each word of the 
combination may retain its accent. This fact, which is sometimes 
overlooked by the modern metrician is recognized by Priscian. 
After referring to such words as turisperitus, legislator, etc., he 
says (Gr. L. II. 183): possunt tamen haec eadem etiam separata 
esse, Si diuersos accentus his dederis uel interponas coniunctiones, 
In some cases we can trace the change in accent in a combination 
of words, each of which has its independent accent, to a word- 
group united under one accent, and finally to a compound.’ 


1 Sievers Phonetik5, ἡ. 235, § 630. 

2Cf, etenim, et ita Bursian’s Jahresber. CXXX, p. 163; Stolz Hist. Gramm. ἃ. 
lat. Sprache, p. 108. 

δ Brugmann op. cit. II?, p. 38. ὅ Brugmann op. cit. 13, pp. 265, 877. 

4Bursian’s Jahresber. CXXX, p. 163. 6 Bursian’s Jahresber, OXXX, p. 167. 

7TAPA. XXXVII, p. 189, note; Corssen Aussprache 113. Ὁ. 887. 


THe Worp-AcCoENT IN LaTIN HEXAMETER 41 


There is an unbroken gradation in word-groups from those 
which are united under one accent and can with difficulty be dis- 
tinguished from compound words, to those which are more loosely 
connected and which appear almost as independent words. Some 
classes of these combinations appear as a rule united under one 
accent; other classes are on the border-line, and are as frequently 
united under one accent as they are accented as individual words; 
others regularly retain their separate accents and are only in 
exceptional cases treated as word-groups.' To the class of word- 
groups which are almost as fixed in their accent as compound 
words belongs the preposition with its case. This combination is 
treated in verse as one word rather than as two. Thus a foot 
may end with inter followed by its case as inter se, though it 
could not be formed by a spondaic word which did not form a 
part of an unmistakable word-group. Word-groups are also freely 
formed by adjective and noun, subject or object and verb, 
especially the verb followed by a pronoun as object.’ It is how- 
ever to be noted that under the influence of the verse rhythm 
word-groups may sometimes be formed by combinations of words 
not intimately associated in thought. Even compounds may be 
formed by words which are not grammatically connected.’ 

1This difference in word-groups may be easily illustrated by the English. In the 
groups good-looking, bill-of-fare, the union is more complete than in far-seeing, 
bill-of-goods. 

2 Norden Aeneis VI, Ὁ. 425. 4; Meyer Beobachtung des Wortaccentes, Ὁ. 49. 


8 Brugmann op. cit. 113. p. 50. Professor Radford, who has contributed so much 
to our knowledge of the recession of accent in word-groupe, seems to me to limit the 
application of the principle more than the facts justify. He regards the recession as 
inseparable from the traditional word-order (Am. Jour. Phil. XXV, p. 258; TAPA. 
XXXVI, p. 197, n.1). He objects to the word-group uoluptés mea because the more 
usual order is mea uoluptas, yet he admits the accent operim datis and tu4m rem 
though the word-order is in these examples far from invariable; Am. Jour. Phil. XXV, 
p. 258; TAPA. XXXVI, p.191. In regard to the use of matr6m meam and the avoid- 
ance of patré6m meum at the close of the line see Bursian’s Jahresber. OXXX, pp. 167 f. 
Again Radford admits, Am. Jour. Phil. XXV, p. 269, ἢ. 2, that ‘*the word-order sub- 
ject + verb must be recognized as sometimes causing recession in Latin."’ Of casual 
combinations involving the enclitic he says (ibid., p. 155), ** Wholly exceptional, how- 
ever, is the peculiar Greek usage which is seen, for example, in the recessive accent of 
a casual combination like ἄνθρωπός rives;’’ but, ibid., p. 266, he says in reference to 
tribrach and anapaestic groups: ‘recession has usually occurred even in purely casual 
combinations.’’ Thus we see that while Radford is dealing mainly with combinations 
of words which have been stereotyped into fixed word-groups, he admits that there are 
combinations which we may call possible word-groups. 


42 ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


Such word-groups as matrem meam present the same ques- 
tion in regard to the accent, as arises in the case of the insepar- 
able enclitic. Is the accent mdterque or matérque? Both meth- 
ods of accentuation find vigorous defenders, and a sufficient array 
of facts and arguments can be found to justify the recognition of 
either accent. While Schrader shows in regard to -ne in Plautus, 
the type Adcine is far more common than hocine, the types memi- 
nistin, uidén, datisne are employed with almost as much freedom 
as meministin, uiden, dpusne. The same characteristics are found 
in Plautus and Terence in compounds formed with the other 
inseparable enclitics; and what is true for comedy is true for other 
forms of verse (cf. supra, p.71). We must accordingly conclude 
that words compounded with an inseparable enclitic and having 
the penult long, have the hovering accent (schwebende Beton- 
ung).’ Without the recognition of this accent, modern verse 
would be unintelligible, and the fact that it has not been recog- 
nized in Latin verse has led to contradictory theories.’ 

As the accent of mdtrémque is hovering, or nearly equal on 
the two syllables, so there is hovering accent in matrém suam, 
and the verse is free to recognize either of these two accents. In 
modern languages words with hovering accent usually have a 
lighter accent than other words of like emphasis. Thesame may be 
assumed for Latin. Accordingly the fifth foot of the hexameter 

1Schrader De particularum -ne, anne, nonne apud Plautum prosodia (Trabner, 
1885), pp. 5, 6, 10, 12, 20, 22, 26. 

3 At the period when words of the type illius were passing from {llius to illfus the 
accent must have been hovering, i. e. nearly the same in stress on the first two syllables. 


In Terence’s time the hovering accent is found in the type ~ ~ ~ =, it is sometimes 
& ~~ = and sometimes ~ < ~ =. 


8In old English hovering accent was more common than in the English of today, 
but the present pronunciation of ddvérse will illustrate the principle. Definite rules 
have been formulated for the use of this class of words. For example Alex. Schmidt 
Shakespeare-Lexicon, Ὁ. 1413, says: ‘* Dissyllabic oxytonical adjectives and participles 
become paroxytonical before nouns accented on the first syllable.’’ Compare “δ 
pierce a c6mplete bosom”’ with ‘He is compléte in feature and mind.’’ Bridges 
(Milton’s Prosody, p. 54) says of this class of words, ‘‘They must of course have 
acquired their shifting pronunciation before the poet could have relied on their obey- 
ing the verse stress.’”’ Many words in Chaucer especially those of Romance origin, 
vary in accent, as hénour, honéur. Almost any of the poets of Germany or England 
will illustrate the use of hovering accent. For references to the subject see, for 
example, ‘‘schwebende Betonung ’”’ in the indices of Paul Grundriss ἃ. Germ. Phil. II. 
22, and Schipper Englische Metrik. 


THE WorpD-ACCENT IN LATIN HEXAMETER 43 


is rarely formed by a final followed by a pyrrhic, just as the 
word type - ~ ~ - = is avoided because only a secondary word- 
accent would occur in the fifth arsis. When a pyrrhic word forms 
the fifth thesis in hexameter it is regularly preceded by a mono- 
syllable. The sentence-accent of a monosyllable is more marked 
than the final of a polysyllable. In the former the word-accent is 
reinforced, in the latter the place of the accent is changed; the 
accent is distributed over two syllables.’ 

The difference between the accent of the second and third feet, 
and the fifth and sixth feet of hexameter resembles the difference 
between the accent at the close of pentameter and of hexameter. 
The hexameter usually closes with a word of marked accent; 
sentence-enclitics are rare in this position. Of the 408 lines in 
Catullus lxiv, 402 lines end with a noun, adjective, or verb (Nor- 
den op. cit., p. 391). The pentameter, onthe other hand, fre- 
quently closes with sentence-enclitics, such as meus, fuit, etc. 
The close of the iambic verse also resembles in its structure the 
second and third feet of hexameter, and the end of the pentameter. 
The word-group accents which here form so prominent an element 
of the verse structure are based on natural tendencies of the 
language, tendencies which are brought out and are reinforced by 
the verse rhythm. It would be a strange and inexplicable phe- 
nomenon if iambic verse, which evidently strove to reproduce on 
the stage the living language of Rome, should in the most important 
and conspicuous part of the verse so frequently disregard this 
principle. 

I shall consider the following subjects: I, pyrrhic words in the 
second and third feet, (a) in Ovid, (δ) in Lucan, (c) in Virgil; 
IT, the relation of the accent of the fourth foot, when formed by 
a spondaic word, to the preceding monosyllable, (a) in Ovid, 
(6) in Virgil; III, the fourth foot when formed by two monosyl- 
lables, (a) in Ovid, (6) in Virgil; IV, monosyllables in the sec- 
ond and third feet, (a) in Ovid, (Ὁ) in Virgil; V, monosyllables 
in the sixth foot; VI, iambic words in the second and third feet, 
(a) in Lucan, (0) in Ovid and Virgil. 

1 The accent of the word-group in Latin is a compromise between the word-accent 


and the word-group accent, as in modern languages the accent of a phrase is a com- 
promise between the word-accent and the sentence-accent (Sievers op cit., p. 253, § 682. 


44 ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


I. I wish to show that pyrrhic words are used in such a 
way that they will not form a word-group with the preceding 
word. | 

a. In Ovid’ in 61 cases the pyrrhic word is preceded by a 
period, colon, semicolon, or interrogation. In 48 cases it is pre- 
ceded by a comma which in all cases corresponds to a sense-pause. 
In 42 cases it is followed by a monosyllabic form of esse, as 
humanum genus est. Here the sentence-enclitic est forms with 
genus a word-group of three syllables, so that the accent of genus 
cannot be thrown back on the final of humanum. In 20 cases it 
- 18 nist, modo, sine, simul, tamen, neque, ita, ubt. Here the pyrrhic 
is not closely connected with the preceding word, but with the 
following word or phrase. In 28 cases it is not separated by so 
definite a sense-pause as in the cases mentioned above, but it is 
closely connected with the following word.’ In 31 cases it is not 
closely connected with the preceding word, but it is not in all cases 
closely connected with the following word ; it has, however, a special 
emphasis’ of its own which prevents it from losing its accent and 
forming a word-group with the preceding word.* 


1For Ovid I take the first six books of the Metamorphoses as the basis of my sta- 
tistics, using Merkel; for Lucan the editions of Francken and Hosius, references to 
punctuation refer to Francken; for Virgil, Ribbeck. I do not include in my examina- 
tion the last six books of the Aeneid. 


2In 13 cases the pyrrhic is a verb followed by its subject, or by an adjective in 
agreement with the subject; i. 215, 316; ii. 8; iii. 229, ete. In 7 cases the pyrrhic isan 
adjective immediately followed by its noun, as ferus hostis. In 4 cases a word inter- 
venes between the adjective and its noun, as ii. 21 sua fert uestigia; i. 399, v. 282, vi. 
197. In 2 cases the pyrrhic is a noun closely connected with the following noun, as 
pater Inicus, i. 651, ii. 261. In vi. 467, 584 it is an adverb modifying the following word. 


3On the importance of emphasis in verse rhythm cf. TAPA. XXXVI, pp. 163 ff. 


4In 10 cases the pyrrhic ἰδ a verb which is definitely separated in thought from the 
preceding word, though not in all cases closely associated with the following word; 
i. 391; ii. 567; iii. 499; iv. 3, 517, 675; v. 94; vi. 250, 332, 574. In 6 cases the pyrrhic is 
a noun not connected with the preceding word ; ii. 92, 726; iii. 68, 245; iv. 441; v. 263. 
There are two cases of the dative of possessor, not connected with the preceding, but 
with the following, word or phrase; ii. 88; vi. 356. In iii. 588 ars illi sua census erat, 
sua is separated from the word with which it agrees and is somewhat emphatic. 
Similar are vi. 89, 613. 
In the three following lines the pyrrhic word is especially emphatic: 
iii. 458: cumque ego porrexi tibi bracchia, porrigis ultro, 
v. 166: nescit, ultro potius ruat, et ruere ardet utroque, 
vi. 301: dumque rogat, pro qua rogat, occidit. orba regedit. 


Tue Worp-AcoENT IN LaTIN HEXAMETER 45 


Of these 31 cases 7 deserve special attention." In these the 
pyrrhic word is not so much emphasized by the thought as by its 
position before a word of at least 7 morae. . The structure of Latin 
verse gives evidence that the utterance of a long word tended to 
throw a stress or emphasis on the preceding word. Nearly every 
case of lengthening in Virgil, occurs either before a sense-pause 
or before a word of at least 5 morae. Compare p. 56; TAPA. 
XXXVII, p. 183, n. 1. 


Four cases remain: 
i. 705: Panaque cum prensam sibi iam Syringa putaret. 

Here sibi is connected with the preceding word. The rhythm 
of the line is Greek rather than Roman, as is indicated by the 
two Greek proper names which retain their Greek endings. 

Similar is 

vi. 214: adiectura preces erat his Latona relatis. 
In the line 


vi. 193: sum felix: quis enim negat hoc? felixque manebo, 


quis enim is a word-group of frequent occurrence; negat hoc 
would tend to form another word-group. Accordingly negat 
could not form a word-group with the preceding word. 


i. 72: neu regio foret ulla suis animantibus orba. 


This line is exceptional both in regard to the use of the pyrrhic 
and the iambic words, unless we regard the verse-norm as a 
determining element of the rhythm. The verse-norm would 
bring the caesurae after regio and suis. While suzs is closely 
connected with the following word in sense, the tendency to make 
a pause before a long word would be an element in the verse 


= 
tute 
Φ 


. 275: caeruleus frater iuuat auxiliaribus undis 

825: utque malum late solet inmedicabile cancer 

266: mollia neruosus facit internodia poples 

588: euehor, et data sum comes inculpata Mineruae 

266: at Olytien, quamuis amor excusare dolorem 

14: huius ut aspicerent opus admirabile, saepe 
. 461: talibus extemplo redit ad praesentia dictis 
As the preposition with its case resembles a compound I have included the last 

case. 


davede 


, 
46 ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


rhythm (p. 45), as also the tendency of the enclitic to throw 
back its accent (p. 43).' 

Even if exception is taken to the explanation of some of the 
cases considered, still the number of exceptions is very small. 
There is the unmistakable aim on the part of the poet to employ 
pyrrhic words in such a way that they will not form word-groups 
with the preceding word.” 

The fact that when the pyrrhic word is closely related in 
thought to the preceding word it is emphatic, and is usually a 
noun or verb, shows that the accent and not the caesura is the 
determining element of the rhythm. 

The difference between the use of the pyrrhic in the second 
and third feet and in the first and fourth is most marked. In the 
first foot we have such as i. 1 in noua, 4 ad mea, 9 non bene, 11 
nec noua, 16 sic erat, etc. In the fourth we have i. 5 quod tegit, 
82 quisquis fuit, 66 dignas Ioue, etc. 

b. Lucan is sparing in his use of pyrrhic words in the second 
and third feet." His usage corresponds very closely to that of 
Ovid as will be seen from the following summary of the entire 
Pharsalha. 

In 39 cases the pyrrhic word is preceded by a period, colon, 
semicolon, or interrogation. In 45 cases by a comma correspond- 
ing to a sense-pause. In 11 cases it is nisi, sine, ubt, neque, 
prope, simul, tamen, quoque, words which are not connected in 
thought with the preceding but with the following word. In 13 
cases it is an adjective followed by its noun. In 3 cases it is a 
noun followed by its adjective. In 9 cases it is a verb followed 
by its subject and not closely connected with the preceding word, 
as ii. 214 ad molem stetit unda sequens. In 8 cases it is a verb 

1fii. δ exilium. [facto pius et sceleratus eodem.] 
If this phrase is included in our text it may perhaps be justified on the ground of the 
emphasis of pius. 

2Monosyllables show a special tendency to form word-groups (p. 54). The only 
pyrrhic words preceded by a monogyllable in the same clause are such as are followed 
by a monosyllabic form of esse, as mors grauis est iii. 471, and the two following cases, 
in which the monosyllable forms a word-group with the preceding word, vi. 801 pro 
qua rogat, 304 color est sine sanguine. 

8The ten books of the Pharsalia contain only about twice as many examples of 


the pyrrhic word in the second and third feet as the first book contains in the first and 
fourth feet. 


Tux Worp-AcoEnT IN LaTIn HEXAMETER 47 


followed by an adjective and subject, as i. 306 in classem cadit 
omne nemus, ii. 299; vii. 597. In 21 cases the pyrrhic word is 
preceded by the modifier of another word. It is a prominent 
word such as a noun, verb, or an emphatic pronoun.’ Somewhat 
similar in character to these are 9 cases in which the pyrrhic word 
is clearly separated in thought from the preceding word.’ In 15 
cases the pyrrhic word, though connected in thought with the 
preceding word, is emphatic and retains its accent.’ 

Though the following cases are the most doubtful, yet the 
pyrrhic word seems clearly to associate itself in thought rather 
with the following word than with the preceding: 


i. 510: O faciles dare summa deos. 
ii. 147: sed fecit sibi quisque nefas, 
486: atque omnis trahe, gurges, aquas, 
vii. 852: si socero dare regna, 
477: tunc ausae dare signa, 
viii. 887: exul adhuc iacet umbra ducis, 
x. 101: sed procul hoc auertant fata.‘ 
vi. 221: cui iaculum parua Libys amentauit habena.° 
v. 428: obliquat laeuo pede carbasa. 
This last appears to be the most exceptional case. It is, however, 
to be noted that nouns have as a rule a more marked accent than 
other classes of words. 

c) Turning to Virgil, we should not expect him to conform 
to the strict rules observed by Ovid and Lucan. The question 
arises whether his method in the use of pyrrhic words in the sec- 
ond and third feet is such as to change the rhythm of the verse, 
or whether the verse norm would predominate over the natural 
prose accent. The verse structure seems to warrant the conclu- 
sion that there is an actual change in the verse rhythm. We find 
the following forms in the second and third feet: 

14, 288 liuor edax tibi cuncta negat; ii. 321, 583, 720; ili. 85, 187; iv. 449, 506; 
v. 874, 686, 736; vi. 272, 362, 534, 710; vii. 538, 562, 626; viii. 640, 687; x. 445. 

21, 603; iv. 372; v. 456, 486; vii. 117; ix. 281, 459, 942; x. 47. 

$1, 344, 649, 673, 693; ii. 622; iii. 865, 645; iv. 479, 585; v. 348, 857; vi. 285, 829; 
vii. 475; viii. 141. 


4Procul hoc auertere are closely connected; cf. x. 341. 


5In this line the noun though closely associated with the preceding adjective, is 
emphasized by the long word following, as in the examples in Ovid (p. 45). 


48 ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


Aen. iii. 697 numina; i. 82 in latus; v. 308 hic erit.’ 


He did not discard the rules of the stricter poets, but he modified 
their application, or we may say that he formulated new rules. 
In the great majority of instances, especially in the Hclogues and 
Georgics, his use of pyrrhic words is the same as that adopted by 
Ovid and Lucan. We may accordingly confine our attention to 
those cases in which he employs a different method. 

In the Eclogues he departs but slightly from the method of 
Ovid. The pyrrhic words which conform to a somewhat different 
usage we may divide into two classes: (1) those in which there 
is a decided tendency to recession of accent owing to the close 
connection of the pyrrhic with the preceding word, and to the 
enclitic nature of the pyrrhic word;’ (2) those in which the ten- 
dency of recession of accent is not so marked. Here it would 
depend on the individual interpretation just how far the pyrrhic 
word lost its individual accent. It is to be remembered that the 
sentence-accent in contrast to the word-accent is in no small 
degree dependent on individual feeling and interpretation.’ 

In the Georgics I have not found any instances which seem to 
belong unmistakably to the first class. Examples of the second 
class occur somewhat more frequently than in the Eclogues. 


1 Also i. 17 currus fuit; ii. 275 qui redit; 438 Aeneas ait; ii. 229 insinuat pauor; 
Georg. ii. 214 tofus scaber; iii. 95 morbo grauis; Aen. i. 168 nympharum domus; 
i. 475 infelix puer; Georg. iii. 6 Hylas pater (cf. Marspiter). 

If these types are freely used in the first and fourth feet but are carefully avoided 
in the second and third feet by those poets who are most strict in the construction of 
their verse, the natural inference is that the usage was determined by the accent. 
Where the accent is allowed on the arsis, as in the first and fourth feet, these forms 
are common; in the second and third feet, which require the accent on the thesis, 
they are avoided. We are not to conclude that Virgil was superior to giving heed to 
matters so insignificant, as they appear to the modern critic. The question is not how 
we should expect a poet of the genius of Virgil to compose, but what are his methods 
as revealed by his verse. 


2There are four such cases: i. 29 respexit tamen; vii. 17 posthabui tamen; ix. 8 
ueriti sumus; x. 33 o mihi. 


8Hempl. German Orthography and Phonology, Ὁ. 179. To this class belong 
x. 36: aut custos gregis aut maturae uinitor uuae; also vii. 52, viii. 102, x. 28, 37. In 
the earliest Eclogues, the second, third and fifth, there are no exceptions to the method 
of Ovid, and in the later ones the exceptions are few in number. 

We may note that the character of the rhythm of Eclogues viii and ix is largely 
determined by the use of pyrrhic words. There are more such words in the second, 
third, and fourth feet of these 174 lines than in the entire first book of the Georgics. 


THe Worp-ACcENT IN LATIN HEXAMETER 49 


This difference in method does not denote a tendency to adopt a 
stricter handling of the pyrrhic words but is dependent on the 
character of the poems.’ 

The Aeneid presents a very marked change in the method of 
using pyrrhic words. The instances in which they are closely 
connected in thought with the preceding word are nearly as 
numerous as those in which they are separated from it. To illus- 
trate we may take the examples which occur in the first 200 lines. 
On the one hand we have the following which correspond to Ovid’s 


usage: 
26 animo, manet; 77 labor, mihi; 100 Sarpedon, ubi. 


In the following we have the opposite type, which is characteristic 
of Virgil: 
17 hic currus fuit; 52 Aeoliam uenit; 54 imperio premit; 82 in 


latus; 115 in puppim ferit; 116 in caput; 144 Cymothoe simul; 168 
nympharum domus; 171 lex numero subit; 194 hinc portum petit. 


In this part of the Aeneid we see that the poet leaves no 
chance for doubt to which class each case belongs. In every 
instance it is marked by a definite sense-pause. Some of the edi- 
tions indicate this by punctuation in every instance. While these 
200 lines indicate the general method of the Aeneid, the rhythm 
is not everywhere indicated with the same clearness. The first 
part of a poem is apt to be especially regular in structure, and at 
the beginning of the Aeneid Virgil appears to give the keynote 
of the whole poem. Viewing the poem as a whole there are many 
instances in which the rhythm would depend on individual inter- 
pretation. In this respect the rhythm of the Aeneid corresponds 
to that of music and of modern poetry. The accent of Men- 
delssohn’s “Songs without Words,”’ and of Milton’s verse is not in 
all cases a fixed quantity, but it differs with individual interpre- 
tation. 

1The Eclogues are more unconventional in form; and the most marked cases of 
the recession of accent in these poems occur where the form is conversational. We 
may note the following instances in the Georgics: 1.91 seu durat magis; 143 tum 


ferri rigor; 194, 358; ii. 76, 130, 214, 240, 256, 351, 514; fli. 6, 53, 95, 98, 100, 396, 403, 440; 
iv. 6, 130, 168, 232, 246, 341, 444, 448, 492, 495. 


50 ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


In the entire first book’ the pyrrhic word which occurs in the 
second and third feet, and which is closely connected in thought 
with the preceding word, is evidently less emphatic than the pre- 
ceding word, and thus subordinate to it in accent. 

II. Several writers have noted the usage which characterizes 
spondaic words in the first foot (Norden op. cit., p. 145). Ihave 
not, however, found any reference to the rules which characterize 
the use of spondaic words in the fourth foot. This foot is in gen- 
eral subject to stricter rules than the first foot, so that we should 
expect to find special restrictions in regard to spondaic words 
which are entirely excluded from the second and third feet. 

a) The rule for Ovid may be stated as follows: (1) if a spon- 
daic word forms the fourth foot, it is preceded by a monosyllable 
or an elided dissyllable which is long in quantity, is without sen- 
tence-accent and is closely related in thought to the spondaic word; 
(2) for rhetorical effect an emphatic monosyllable in a few 
instances replaces the unaccented monosyllable.’ 


1 Besides the cases already cited from the first 200 lines there are the following: 
285 seruitio premit; 829 Phoebi soror; 400 portum tenet; 438 Aeneas ait; 475 infelix 
puer; 477 lora tenens tamen; 513 obstipuit simul; 634 currus fuit; 717 reginam 
petit; 743 hominum genus. In the last line though hominum is the modifier, it is 
the more emphatic word. It is the human race in contrast to pecudes. Similar are 
168 and 829. When the noun and verb are clearly connected in thought, unless there 
is special emphasis on the verb it is subordinate in accent to the noun. (Cf. supra, 
p. 70, TAPA. XXXVI, p. 98). We meet with the same phenomenon in early German 
poetry (Paul Grundriss ἃ. germ. Phil. II. 23, p. 14). I add the moat striking illustra- 
tions found in the second book: 30, 104, 125, 222, 229, 244, 272, 275, 300, 338, 466, 528, 691. 
Further examples are unnecessary; the usage is uniform throughout the Aeneid. 
Though the latter books contain a larger percentage of short words, yet the percentage 
of pyrrhic words in the second and third feet does not increase, nor does the method 
in which they are employed in the latter part of the poem differ from that of the 
earlier books. 


2In the first book the spondaic word is preceded by a preposition in lines 42, 170, 
368, 450, 727; by an unemphatic relative in 183, 205, 348, 524; by et in 22, 122, 149, 440, 
677; by nec in 92, 305, 462; by non in 98, 633; by aut in 295. In 606 iam nosset, the 
adverb is not emphatic. 389: uerba datae sortis secum, inter seque uolutant. Compare 
vi, 57 atque inter stamina. The preposition is hardly felt to be a spondaic word, but 
rather a part of a compound ; ita individuality is 8180 lessened by the elision. This usage 
of inter in the fourth foot is common in Virgil. There is one example in the first 
book of the emphatic monosyllable: 559: te coma, te citharae, te nostrae, laure, phare- 
trae. Here Ovid justifies the use of te by its emphatic repetition. This isa reminiscence 
of Virgil Ecl. vi.10f.: te nostrae, Vare, myricae, | tenemus omne canet. There arealso 
the following examples of the emphatic monosyllables found in the following five 
books: iii. 203; iv. 444,627. Besides the unaccented monosyllables mentioned as 


THe Worp-Acoent ΙΝ Latin HEXAMETER 51 


δὴ) Virgil in the Eclogues and Georgics follows the same gen- 
eral rules which we have seen illustrated in Ovid, but he is some- 
what freer in his usage. In the Eclogues there are 12 cases.’ In 
the Georgics there are 37 cases of the spondaic word in the fourth 
foot preceded by the unemphatic monosyllable.* In two lines the 
spondaic word is preceded by a pyrrhic.’ There are three instances 
of the emphatic monosyllable preceding the spondee.‘ 

The Aeneid is characterized by far greater freedom in the use 
of spondaic words in the fourth foot. The preceding word is 
more frequently one which is monosyllabic by elision. This type 
is used especially when the preceding monosyllable is accented 
and emphatic. inter in the fourth foot is frequently preceded: 
(1) by its noun united by elision,’ or (2) by adjective in agree- 
ment with a noun which follows inter.’ In 10 cases an emphatic 
monosyllable precedes.’ In 14 instances the spondaic word is 
preceded by a pyrrhic word.’ The pyrrhic word forms a sort of 
anacrusis. It is always preceded by a sense-pause, and usually 
by strong sense-pause. In every case it is less emphatic than 
the following spondaic word, and is accordingly subordinate in 
accent. 


occurring in the first book before the spondaic word, we find in the next five books: 
ii, 291 cur, 345 nam; iii. 91 dum, 384 quot, 678 iam; iv. 211 tam, 546 uos, 660 tum; vi. 
182 buc, 561 uix. 

11, 51 hic inter, 80 sunt nobis, 81 et preasi; ii. 27 si numquam; iii. 51 ne quemquam; 
iv. 24 et fellax; vi. 10 te nostrae, 11 nec Phoebo, 39cum primum; vii. 45 et somno; ix. 
12 tela inter, 66, in longum. 

31 cite the words in the most striking cases: i. 22, 36, 87 sive illis, 174, 278, 344, 372 
atque omnis, 397, 417, 427, 433, 445 densa inter nubila, 501; ii. 24, 55, 143, 166 atque auro, 
218, 291, 301, 335, 388 atque inter, 449, 468; iii. 91, 106 illi instant, 110, 308, 357, 450, 540; 
iv. 11, 100, 198, 268, 348, 452. 

8111, 221 lauit ater; iv. 229 prius haustu. 

411. 150: bis grauidae pecudes, bis pomis utilis arbos; 159: anne lacus tantos? te, 
Lari maxime, teque; 241: tale dabit specimen: tu spisso uimine quallos. In the first two 
lines the bis and te are emphasized by the repetition; in the third tu isemphasized by the 
thought and by ite position in the sentence. 

5ij, 110; iv. 708; v. 348; vi. 249. 

6 Of. 1. 191 nemora inter; iii. 348; vi. 183. 

ΤΟΙ, vi. 245 media inter cornua, 513, 592. We may note also li. 672 meque extra and 
iv. 177 caput inter nubila. 

811, 218, 402, 697; iii. 512; v. 156, 178, 191, 701, 751; vi. 22. 

91, 26 manet alta, 209 premit altum; ii. 557 facet ingens, 661 petit isti; iii. 9 dare 
fatis, 508 quibus idem; iv. 407 opere omnis; v. 116 agit acri; vi. 42 latus ingens, 127 
patet atri, 196 ubi pinguem, 271 ubi caelum, 400 licet ingens, 709 strepit omnis. 


52 ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


III. (a) When two monosyllables form the fourth foot, the 
rule for Ovid is as follows: (1) if they are united in thought so 
that they may form a word-group, they are subject to the same 
rule as a spondaic word in the same foot;' (2) as a rule the 
monosyllables occurring in the fourth foot are not so closely 
related as to form a word-group.* They are accordingly not the 
equivalent of a spondaic word, and are not subject to the same 
rules. As this foot allows the word-accent to fall either on the 
arsis or the thesis, it is not necessary for the poet to make it self- 
evident which syllable has the main accent, but it may in certain 
cases be left to individual interpretation. 

When the fourth foot is formed by two monosyllables, they 
are usually subordinate words, such as are commonly used as sen- 
tence-enclitics. When one of these monosyllables is a more 
prominent sentence word it is regularly the first of the two.’ In 
these the accent of the foot corresponds to that of the fifth and 
sixth feet in which there is coincidence of accent and ictus. 

(Ὁ) The usage of the Eclogues and Georgtcs corresponds very 
nearly to that of the Metamorphoses. In Georg. ii. 98 quibus et 
rex the emphasis is on the second monosyllable. This is a type 
which became a favorite with the poet in the Aenerd. 

In the second type, as in Ovid, the monosyllables are such as 
are usually employed as sentence-enclitics. In Kcl. i. 16 si mens 
non and Georg. i. 187 cum nux se we have 4n accented word in 
the arsis.‘ 

The usage of the Aeneid differs essentially from that of the 


1The foot is preceded by a monosyllabic sentence-enclitic, as i. 52 qui quanto eat, 
127 de duro est; or it may be preceded for rhetorical effect by an emphatic monogyl- 
lable, as vi. 191 pars haec est. 


8] cite the examples found in books i-iii, omitting the Latin in cases where the 
monosyllables forming the fourth foot are separated in thought and are preceded by 
a sentence-enclitic: i. 188 sed itum est in; 406 sed uti est de, 494, 586 sed quam non, 
613, 618 pudor est qui; 770, ii. 54, 63, 72, 134, 191 stupet et nec; 282 haec ipsa in; 424 sunt 
o sunt; 431, 438 nemus est et; 455, 514 nisi nox cum; 572, 579 mota est pro; 743 ego 
sum, qui; 785 ea est, haud; iii. 211, 348, 368 tantum haec in, 534. 

8Of. ii. 514 nox cum iii. 211; trux cum; iv. 187 dis non. 


4The remaining examples found in the Eclogues and Georgics are as follows: 
Ecl. iii. 19, 48, 54, 109; v. 32, 43, 88; vi. 52, 73; vii. 23; viii. 39; ix. 65,66; x. 10, 88, 
48; Georg. i. 16, 53, 408, 419, 438; ii. 45, 95, 363, 521; iii. 212, 213, 323, 340, 621, 556; iv. 
40, 116, 170, 184, 205, 525. 


Toe Worp-AccENT IN LATIN HEXAMETER 53 


Eclogues and Georgics. The monosyllables in the fourth foot 
may here be divided into two classes: (1) those in which they are 
so disconnected in thought that they cannot form a word-group;' 
(2) those in which the first monosyllable is a sentence-enclitic 
and is united to the preceding word by elision, or is preceded by 
a pyrrhic word, while the monosyllable in the thesis is an emphatic 
word and in most cases a noun. In this type the accent of the 
foot corresponds to that of the second and third feet in which the 
word-accent falls on the thesis.’ 

IV. .When two monosyllables occur in the second and third 
feet they are not so connected in thought that they can form a 
word-group, and thus be equivalent to a spondaic word. 

a) In order to make this fact clear we may divide the examples 
in the first four books of the Metamorphoses into.two classes: 
(1) those in which the sense-pause between the monosyllables 
is indicated by punctuation;* (2) those in which it is not thus 
indicated. To this class belong: i. 470 humatum est et; ii. 63, 
67, 402; iv. 799. In these the monosyllables belong to different 
clauses. We also have the type ii. 808 | os in | se; iii. 546 uos 
pro | fama; iv. 372 a | me nec, 633 sub | hoc et. In these one 
of the monosyllables forms part of a word-group with a word not 
belonging to the same foot.‘ In the 32 examples found in books 
i-iv, est occurs in the arsis 22 times. 

δὴ) The same rules apply throughout Virgil. I will merely 
call attention to the use of the interrogative quzs in the thesis. 
It is so used 12 times in the first six books of the Aeneid, as 


1 There are 25 cases preceded by a long monosyllable: i. 261, 605, 755; ii. 8, 94, 119, 
151, 283, 287, 378, 390, 547, 664, 694; ili. 43, 94, 311, 381, 598, 651, 694; iv. 181, 339, 371, 
442; v. 411, 670, 809; vi. 63, 85, 315, 461, 768; 7 are preceded by a pyrrhic word, or by a 
word which has become 80 by elision: iii. 16, 168; iv. 333; v. 45, 325; vi. 548, 620. 

411, 129 uocem et me, 774 comae et uox (repeated in iii. 48, iv. 280), iii. 93 terram, 
et uox, 168 genus a quo, 198 nimbi et nox, 287 figo et rem, 454 socii et ui, iv. 477 tegit ac 
spem, v. 67 ualet et qui, 117 genus a quo, vi. 186 immensam et sic, 686 lacrimae et ὍΟΣ, 
841 tacitum aut te. ᾿ 

3In the first four books we have: i. 49, 175, 191, 247, 537, 660; ii. 568, 663, 829, 849, 
852; iii. 9, 97, 476; iv. 44, 61, 324, 332, 427, 499, 585. 

44.539: sic deus et uirgo, est hic spe celer, illa timore; 720: Arge, iaces. quodque in 
tot lumina lumen habebas. In these the first monosyllable of the foot is united to the 
preceding word by elision, and the second is emphatic and has a prominent accent, so 
that the effect is not the equivalent of a spondaic word. 


54 ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


ii. 70; iii. 187, 318, etc. The relative is placed in the arsis as 
et | qui te vi. 768, except when it has special emphasis as in o qui 
i. 229. This suggests that the ancient grammarians are correct 
in their statements in regard to the nature of the accent of the 
interrogative and the relative pronouns (Lindsay Latin Lang., 
Ρ. 167. 5), and also that Virgil carefully avoided the accented 
monosyllable in the arsis. 

V. In Ovid there are 155 hexameter lines ending with a 
monosyllable. Of these 144 are preceded by another mono- 
syllable. The final of the two monosyllables are as follows: 
monosyllabic form of esse 61, personal pronouns 32, forms of 
quis or qui 26, non 13, nunc 3, 8ὲ 3, also the following: quo plus 
Met. v. 65; nec tam ix. 5; cui sic 280; ai ai x. 215; [per! ue os 
xii. 434], sic stant xii.401. La Roche( Wien. Stud. XIX, pp. 7 ff.) 
who has collected these facts, merely draws the following conclu- 
sion: “Bei Ovid .... gibt es fast keinen Hexameter, der auf 
ein einsilbiges Wort endigt, dem nicht noch ein anderes einsil- 
biges Wort vorhergeht so dass zwischen dem ffinften und sechsten ~ 
Fuss eine Didrese besteht.” As the form -~ ~ -~= is regarded 
with equal favor with -~~ -* whyshouldtheform-~~ - ἃ 
be preferred to -~ ~- =? It is not a question of caesura nor 
diaeresis, but of accent, and this appears not simply from the 
divisions, but from the character of the final monosyllables as well. 
These are almost without exception sentence-enclitics; cf. p. 43. 
From La Roche’s statistics one may see that what is true for Ovid 
is true in general for the other poets. 

VI. When we examine the relation of the iambic word in the 
second and third feet to the word which precedes it, we find that 
the conditions are the exact reverse of those which prevail in the 
use of pyrrhic words and of monosyllables in the thesis.’ 

a) If for the sake of brevity we limit our consideration to the 
first book of Lucan, we find 120 examples in which the iambic 
word is closely associated in thought-with the preceding word, 
as noun and adjective, noun and genitive, subject or object of 


1In dealing with iambic words we must bear in mind that its accent is light and 
that this would favor the recession of its accent. The accent of iambic words is 
as a rule insufficient to cause shortening or to prevent slurring (TAPA. XXXVI, 
p. 194, note). 


THe Worp-AccENT IN LaTIN HEXAMETER 55 


verb, adverb and verb, etc.’ In 20 of these examples -que occurs 
before the iambic word, as 29 desuntque manus.’ The enclitics 
-que or -we occur in 31 examples in which the iambic word is not 
closely associated in thought with the preceding word.’ This use 
of the enclitic implies that it has not entirely lost its identity as a 
word, and that it differs in accent from the final of a polysyllable. 
In harmony with this theory is the frequent lengthening of -que 
in the arsis in Virgil. In 13 examples the iambic word is an 
enclitic which is not closely related to the preceding word.‘ This 
is in harmony with the tendency of the enclitic to throw back its 
accent, as is illustrated by the verse of comedy, especially at the 
end of the verse. Of the remaining examples 34 are of the type 
mercede placent; dtros, 38, etc.” In these the marked sense- 
pause following the iambic word favors the union of the two final 
words into a word-group under one accent; and thus this type in 
the verse of hexameter corresponds to the same type occurring at 
the close of the verse of comedy. I include 5 examples of the 
vocative of the type 


Quo fertis mea sign4 uiri? siiure uenitis 191° 


In all these the sense-pause is after the iambic word, and the 
usual mark of punctuation separating the vocative from the rest 
of the sentence, which is usually employed in our modern editions, 
is omitted, in accordance with the ancient method of punctuation. 
Cf. TAPA. XXXVII, p. 155, n. 1. Under this type also belong 
the 3 following lines: 

ut superi uolueré late. tunc rura Nemetis 419 


nec qualem memineré uident: maiorque ferusque 479 
protulerat natur4 rapi sterilique nefandos 590 


In these lines the ancient method of punctuation would not indi- 
cate a pause before the iambic word, but after it. Cf. Wien. 
Stud. XXII, pp. 70 ff. 


16, 17, 21, 28, 80, 84, 41, 47, 50, etc. 
2124, 174, 199, 209, οἷο. 828, 35, 49, 71, ete. 
410, 49, 98, 139, 148, 175, 278, 350, 861, 400, 520, 642, 664. The enclitic words 


are the possessive pronouns, erit, foret, att. inquit and ait are frequently used in 
verse as sentence-enclitics. Of. TAPA. XXXVI, p. 86, ἢ. 2. 


δ §7, 61, 89, 111, 115, 118, etc. 6 226, 331, 660, 681, 


56 ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


In 3 examples a sense-pause precedes the word which is fol- 
lowed by the iambic word.’ This prevents the possibility of a 
pause before the iambic word. 

There are 2 of the type reperaré nouos utris 134, 354, and 2 of 
the type causd deis pldcwit 128, 621. Accenting these two types 
according to the rule of the word-group, the rhythm corresponds 
to the verse-norm. Whereas in the type reperdre nouts uis 
the word-group accent would not correspond to the norm. In 5 
examples the caesura occurs after the iambic word. In spite of 
the punctuation of many of our editions this is true of the two 
following lines: 

audiero, per sign& decem felicia castris 374? 
Romano spectanté rapi. sic quisque pauendo 484 


Five examples remain: 


deseruer6é cauo tentoria fixa Lemanno 896 
Tethyos und& uagae lunaribus aestuet horis 414 


In these the pause after the iambic word is favored by the long 
word of 6 morae following. Cf. p. 45 and TAPA. XXXVII, 
p. 183, n. 1. 
The three following are in a marked degree rhetorical in 

character : 

indignat& diem poscet sibi, totaque discors 79 

Pompeiané reum clauserunt signa Milonem 323 

audendi maior& fidem fecere, peromnem 467 


The question arises in regard to these exceptional cases, whether 
the verse-rhythm prevails over the prose accent, or whether the 
verse-rhythm departs from the norm. In these examples the 
accent on the final syllable before the iambic word may have 
been favored by the emphasis, just as in the verse of comedy the 
final syllable of an emphatic word may remain unelided before a 
vowel,’ or if it stands before a consonant, may receive the ictus 
on the final.‘ 

In answering this question we must bear in mind that the 
rhythm of the verse is a more potent factor in modifying the 


132, 64, 210. 8O0f. TAPA. XXXVII, p. 194. 
2 Of. 267 and 522. 4Cf. the accent of nou, ibid., p. 181. 


THE Worp-ACCENT IN LATIN HEXAMETEE . 57 


ordinary prose accent in such elevated styles of verse as the epic 
than it is in those kinds of verse which reproduce more closely 
the spoken language. This may be clearly seen by contrasting 
the hexameter of Virgil with that of Horace’s Satires, or the 
blank verse of Milton with that of Shakespeare. In the verse of 
all languages the rhythm modifies the accent which characterizes 
words in prose. 

If Lucan had not desired to preserve a uniform rhythm in 
respect to the point under consideration, we should expect to find 
in some cases a marked sense-pause before the iambic word, or 
even some other type of word following the trochaic word or 
ending. But in the whole of the Pharsalia there is no strong 
sense-pause before the iambic word, and there are upward of 2,000 
cases.' In every case also an iambic word follows the trochaic 
word or ending. The only rational explanation, as it seems to 
me, of these characteristics of Lucan’s verse is the fact that he 
aimed to preserve the normal rhythm in respect to the accent of 
the first short syllable in the dactyl of the second and third feet. 

δ) The same principles apply in Ovid and in Virgil. Ovid's 
usage is in general even more strict than that of Lucan. The 
iambic word is usually an enclitic or verb, or a word intimately 
connected in thought with the preceding, so that a word-group is 
naturally formed. The departures from the normal rhythm find 
their justification in the thought, and are introduced for variety 
and rhetorical effect.” In a few instances he introduces a strong 
pause after a trochaic word or ending, and he does not always 
employ the iambic word to complete the foot.’ In Virgil the 
exceptions are more numerous, but they are introduced as a rule 
in connection with Greek words to reproduce the Greek rhythm, 
or are used to emphasize the thought. 


1 There is probably no example in Lucan in which the ancient method of punctu- 
ation would indicate a pause before the iambic word. 


3 praeside tuta deo nemorum secreta subibis, 
nec de plebe deo, sed qui caelestia magna. Metam. i. 594f. 
abstrahit. inde procul montis sublime cacumen 
occupat, unde sedens partes speculatur in omnes. Ibid. i. 666 f. 


Scuncta prius temptaté. sed inmedicabile cura i. 190. 
enumeraré. minor fuit ipsa infamia uero i. 215. 


58 ALBERT GRANGER HARKNESS 


The sense-pause after the trochaic word or ending is not 
_avoided because the feminine caesura is opposed to the vigor of 
the Latin language. The character of the lines in which the 
feminine caesura is used in Homer and in the Latin epic does 
not substantiate the generally accepted theory that this caesura 
is weak. It is often used in Virgil in connection with Greek 
words to reproduce the Greek rhythm, or in lines which express 
strong emotion and which accordingly require special emphasis. 
Our study of the structure of hexameter clearly shows that 
pyrrhic and iambic words and monosyllables are not used in such 
a way that they could be accented as a part of a word-group in - 
cases where the word-group accent would be contrary to the verse- 
rhythm. On the other hand, we find these words employed in 
such a way that they naturally form word-groups where the word- 
group accent is in harmony with the verse-rhythm. These facts 
force on us the conclusion that the rhythm of hexameter is con- 
structed with direct reference to the accent of the word-group. 


Brown UNIVERSITY 


THE POINT OF AN EMPEROR'S JEST 
By Duane REEp Srvarr 


Lampadius, who succeeded Symmachus in the prefecture of the 
city, entertained an exalted opinion of his own importance. Al- 
though the tart comment of Ammianus Marcellinus xxvii. 3. 5 
smacks of the barrack-room, it nevertheless speaks volumes: 
homo indignanter admodum sustinens si, etiam cum spueret, 
non laudaretur, ut id quoque prudenter praeter alios faciens. As 
a typical manifestation of this official’s egotism there is further 
cited his practice of tampering with the inscriptions of dead-and- 
gone emperors on buildings which he had undertaken to restore. 
He took the liberty of inscribing his own name non ut veterum 
instaurator sed conditor. Ammianus continues as follows: quo 
vitio laborasse Traianus dicitur princeps, unde eum herbam parie- 
tinam iocando cognominarunt. 

Now a great man may be permitted to cherish a pet foible or two 

. velut si 

egregio insparsos reprehendas corpore naevos. 
Yet it is not helpful to a reputation to be listed under the same 
rubric as the unpopular Lampadius. Besides, Trajan is accused 
of playing fast and loose with an obligation which emperors no 
better than he or even worse by nature and by practice viewed 
seriously enough. Such Caesars as Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, 
Vespasian, Hadrian, and Alexander Severus within certain definite 
limits perpetuated the memory of former builders and thereby 
won the approval of historians and biographers.’ It was a Domi- 
tian or a Commodus who succumbed to an overweening desire for 
self-glorification achieved at the cost of propriety and justice.” 
Therefore, if this tradition as to the policy of Trajan be trust- 


1The data on which this assertion rests will be found in two previous papers, viz. 
**Imperial Methods of Inscription on Restored Buildings: Augustus and Hadrian,”’ 
Amer. Jour. of Arch. IX (1905), pp. 427-49; ‘‘The Reputed Influence of the Dies 
Natalis in Determining the Inscription of Restored Temples,” Trans. Amer. Phil. Ass. — 
XXXVI (1906), pp. 52-68. 

2Suetonius Domit. 5: Scriptores Hist. Aug. Commodus 17. 6. 
[CLassIroAL PxHILoLoey ITI, January, 1908) 69 


60 DuaNE REED STUART 


worthy, and if his conduct in this respect was of a piece with that 
of the two emperors last named, we find him—to say the least — 
in undesirable company. 

The passage has been often quoted but apparently no one has 
been moved to dissent from its testimony. De la Berge’ cited it 
as proof of the frequency of Trajan’s inscriptions, but took no 
notice of the point which is so vital to the fair fame of the 
emperor—the direct accusation that Trajan stooped to unfair 
measures in order to attach his name to buildings on which rightly 
it had no place. Schiller,® who for some reason holds a brief to 
prove that vanity was Trajan’s besetting sin, uses this passage to 
support his view. I must remark in passing that this is the sole 
piece of primary evidence in his favor which Schiller was able to 
cite from a literary source—a fact which certainly emphasizes the 
necessity of placing a correct valuation on the testimony of 
Ammianus. Liebenam’ bases on the passage a comment in which 
he contrasts the policies of Trajan and Hadrian to the discredit of 
the former: “Im Gegensatz zu Traian der fberall seinen Namen 
verewigt hatte ... . liess sein Nachfolger die urspringlichen 
Widmungen selbst bei grossen Umbauten unverandert.” 

I believe that Ammianus has given a distorted view of the 
matter and that consequently it is grossly unfair to draw any con- 
clusion concerning Trajan’s procedure from the passage. Because 
of the dearth of literary sources dealing with the reign of Trajan 
every scrap of evidence should be closely scrutinized and carefully 
weighed. It is, therefore, pardonable to go to some pains to set 
tradition right in regard to what may seem at most a flaw of minor 
import in the character of a great emperor. 

In the first place, it will be generally admitted, I think, that 
the imputation which Ammianus brings does not agree with what 
we learn from other sources about the character and the conduct 
of Trajan. To be sure, Schiller, as I have said, will have it that 
Trajan was decidedly lacking in modesty. However, the argument 
of this critic fails to convince because of his evident determination 


1 ες Rasai sur le ragne de Trajan,” Bibliothéque de l’école des hautes études XXXII 
(1877), p. 3, n. 5. 

2 Geschichte der rom. Katserzeit I, Ὁ. 545 and Anm. 6 (Gotha, 1883-87). 

8 Stddteverwaltung im rémischen Kaiserreiche, p. 168 (Leipzig, 1900). 


THE Powr OF AN EMPEROR’S JEST 61 


to shape every available piece of data to fit his theory. Some of 
the proofs by which he endeavors to substantiate his charge fall 
but little short of the ludicrous. It was no drastic innovation to 
apply to colonies and to legions the emperor’s name. ‘‘Coloniae 
Augustae’’ were numbered by the dozen; there were ‘“‘Augustan” 
and “Claudian” and ‘“Flavian” legions before there were 
“Ulpian.”” The title Optimus was given by public acclaim 
several years before it was formally countenanced by Trajan as 
an Official designation. The assumption of the name was due to 
popular insistence and not to imperial initiative. There is no 
reason to believe that the same circumstances did not hold good 
of the application of the title Augusta to Marciana.’ It would 
seem that Schiller could scarcely have been serious in asserting 
that the over-redolent rhetorical garlands of the Panegyric give 
token that Trajan was very receptive of flattery. It would be 
almost as sensible to blame the passive subject of a laudatio 
funebris for the time-honored hyperboles of the eulogist. 

If there is any virtue of Trajan that the sources unite in 
praising, it is his freedom from affectation. Champagny’s 
characterization has scarcely been improved upon: “Nicht dass 
ihm an Hochherzigkeit und an einem gewissen Stolze gefehlt 
hatte; aber er zeigte seinen Stolz nicht in kleinlichen Dingen.””’ 
The Correspondence alone suffices to reveal his great common- 
sense and his total indifference toward the tnania honoris in which 
Domitian had delighted. It is as unnecessary as it would be 
tedious to cite from Dio Cassius and from Pliny the many occa- 
sions on which his dislike of petty display had manifested itself. 
I wish simply to call attention to the fact that this same trait 
marked his attitude toward honorary inscriptions. Dio Cassius 
Ixviii. 7. 2 quotes with approval the modest phraseology in which 
was couched the inscription recording the reconstruction of the 
Circus Maximus. Trajan erected a structure more elaborate than 
that which had been damaged by fire in the reign of Domitian and 
materially enlarged its seating capacity; Pliny Pan.51; CIL. VI 
955. ‘‘So generous and high-minded was he,” writes Dio, ‘‘that he 


1So Pliny Pan. 84. 
2Die Antonine, trans. by Dohler, I, p. 49 (Halle, 1876). The original French 
publication is not accessible to me. 


62 Duane REED Stuart 


placed on the Circus an inscription to the effect that he had made 
the building adequate for the Roman people.” Pliny has much to 
say about Trajan’s grudging acceptance of architectural memorials. 
The emperor’s name was to be emblazoned not on beams or stones 
but on the monument of everlasting fame. I quote a stock 
passage from the Panegyric, chap. 59: cum arcus, cum tropaea, 
cum statuas deprecaris, tribuenda est verecundiae tuae venia. 
That Pliny’s report of his idol’s attitude is historically accurate 
and that the emperor consistently adhered to this modest policy 
down to the closing years of his reign is proved by Letter 25 
(= Hardy 9) of the Correspondence: statuam poni mihi a te eo 
quo desideras loco, quamquam eiusmodi honorum parcissimus, 
tamen patior, et seq. 

The portrait of Trajan that we derive from the sources thus 
suggests that he would have been the last man to desire to foist 
his name upon another’s monument. By good fortune we have 
still stronger indication that in the restorations in which he 
engaged so actively Trajan conformed to the ordinary rules and 
avoided all false appearances. I refer to CTL. VI 1275: M. Cal- 
purnius M. f. Piso Frugi pr. ex 8. c. faciundum curavit eidemque 
probavit .... Imp. Caesar Divi Nervae f. Nerva Traianus 
Augustus ... . trib. potest. xii imp. vi cos. v. P. P. operibus 
ampliatis restituit. From this inscription it appears that in the 
year 108/109 a. p. Trajan rebuilt an edifice erected at least a 
century before by a Calpurnius Piso.’ In his dedicatory inscrip- 
tion the emperor kept the name of the founder and appended a 
record of his own restoration of the building. I have shown 
elsewhere’ that there was no presumption involved in such a pro- 
ceeding, much less any such usurpation of the sole right of 
inscription as that for which Ammianus reproaches Trajan. 

How then may we account for the fact that Ammianus denied 
to Trajan admission into the company in which historically we 
should look to find him—i. e., in my category of “‘good” emperors? 
I use the adjective, of course, only in respect to the item of 
behavior with which we are here concerned. The complete 


1 His identity is uncertain; cf. Drumann Geschichte Roms, 2te Auf., II, p. 543. 
2Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. XXXVI (1906), pp. 54-67. 


THE Point oF AN EMPEROR'S JEST 63 


rehabilitation of Trajan, it will be seen, is simply a matter of 
explaining the joke to which Ammianus alludes, the point of which 
had in some way become obscure. From the Epitome of Aurelius 
Victor, 41. 18, we get additional information of value: hic 
(Constantinus) Traianum herbam parietariam ob titulos multos 
aedibus inscriptos appellare solitus erat. In the first place we 
learn that the original perpetrator of the bon mot was Constantine. 
Furthermore, the epitomist presents an independent and, in the 
light of what we have learned about Trajan, a perfectly reasonable 
version of the cause that elicited the epithet. The point of 
Constantine’s jest in its original application lay simply in the 
fact that the inscriptions of Trajan were conspicuous and numerous 
in and around the city. Eutropius was not so far wrong when he 
wrote of Trajan Brev. 8.5: orbem terrarum aedificans. It follows 
as a matter of course that the name of such an indefatigable 
builder was to be read on many edifices. In the Forum of Trajan, 
for example, there was inevitably constant reminder of the founder. 
Thus it came about that Trajan was dubbed “wallpellitory” by 
Constantine, who may have been frankly bored by seeing so 
frequently the name of his great predecessor, who may, like 
Constantius afterward,’ have felt a very human chagrin at having, 
in comparison, no more architectural worlds to conquer, or who 
may have wished simply to turn a phrase.’ However this may 
be, the quip tickled the popular fancy as the efforts of imperial 
jesters are forever doing. So often was it repeated that Ammia- 
nus’ plural, cognominarunt, may be justified without a resort to 
that favorite hypothesis of the source-investigator, nonnull: pro 
uno. 
This is the point, however, that I would emphasize: Underlying 
the nickname there was by no means the animus which Ammianus 
implies. Constantine’s satirical comment was evoked merely by 
the frequency of Trajan’s inscriptions and contains no allusion to 
any such titular forgery—if I may use the term—as that for 
which Lampadius was stigmatized. Trajan cannot be blamed for 
inscribing his buildings. Therefore the number of his inscrip- 


1Amm. Mar. 16. 10. 15-17. 
2Irrisor potius quam blandus: Zp. 41. 15. 


64 Duane Reep Srvuart 


tions varied directly as the number of his monuments. Ammianus 
read too much into the joke and erred in his application of it to 
the compromise of the good name of Trajan. Or it is possible 
that the sarcasm gained acidity in repetition and transmission so 
that what had begun as a humorous reference to the ubiquity of 
Trajan’s inscriptions became a downright reflection on his gener- 
osity as a man and his sense of honor as a restorer. I trust 
that he has been vindicated. 


Princeton UNIVERSITY 


THE ARA MARTIS 
By Samvusgt Batt PLATNER 


In the third part of the firat volume of Jordan’s Topographie 
der Stadt Rom, recently published, Professor Halsen maintains 
(pp. 475-77) that there were two important shrines of Mars in 
the campus Martius, besides the temple built in circo Flaminio 
by Ὁ. Junius Brutus Callaicus in 138 B. o. which does not enter 
into the present discussion. As there are no remains that can be 
identified with any temple or altar of Mars, the question resolves 
itself into an interpretation of ancient evidence. So far as I know, 
no one has hitherto assumed the existence of two cult-centres of 
Mars in the campus Martius (exclusive of the temple of Callaicus), 
although Fowler (Roman Festivals, p. 242) remarks: ‘Perhaps 
the position of the latter (the old ara Martis) had changed as the 
campus came to be built over.” As this new theory is important, 
if true, it may be worth while to review the evidence again, in 
spite of the strong presumption that Hulsen is right as usual. 

For convenience the evidence in the case will be given here, 
and reference to it will be made by the numbers in parentheses: 

(1) Fest. 189 (purporting to be a citation from the leges regiae of 
Numa): opima spolia: qui cepit aeris CC, secunda spolia in Martis 
aram in campo solitaurilia utra voluerit caedito. 

(2) Liv. xxxv. 10. 12 (198 B. ο.): alteram (porticum) a porta Fontinali 
ad Martis aram, qua in campum iter esset, perduxerunt. 

(8) Liv. xl. 45. 8 (179 Β. ο.): comitiis confectis ut traditum antiquitus 
est, censores in campo ad aram Martis sellis curulibus consederunt. 

(4) Dio Cass. ἵν]. 24 (9 a. p.): ὅ re yap τοῦ "Apews νεὼς ὁ ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ 
αὐτοῦ dy ἐκαυρωνήθη. 

(6) Ovid Fast. ii. 866-60 (shortly before 8 a. p.): 

iamque duae restant noctes de mense secundo 
Marsque citos iunctis curribus urget equos: 

ex vero positum permansit Equiria nomen 
quae deus in campo prospicit ipse suo. 

(6) Ibid. iii. 519, 520: 

altera gramineo spectabis Equiria campo 
quem Tiberis curvis in latus urget aquis. 
(CLassIcAL PaiLo.oey Il, January, 1908] 65 


66 SAMUEL BALL PLATNER 


(7) Fest. 178: October equus appellatur qui in campo Martio mense 
Octobre immolatur quotannis Marti... . eiusdem coda tanta celeritate 
perfertur in regiam ut ex ea sanguis destillet in focum participandae rei 
divinae gratia. 

(8) Fasti Philocali ad Oct. 15 (CIL. 13, p. 382 [854 a. p.]): equus ad 
nixas fit. 

(9) CIL. VI. 1785 = 31931 (fourth or fifth century): falancariis qui de 
Ciconiis ad templum cupas referre consuerunt .... professionariis de 
Ciconiis statim ut adveniret vinum.... 

(10) Philoxen. gloss. (CGI. 11. 201): trigarium τόπος ὅπου ἵπποι γυμνά- 
ζονται. 
(11) Notitia, Reg. IX: campum Martiun, trigarium, ciconias nixas, 
pantheum. 

(12) CIL. VI. 31545 (about the middle of the first century): Paullus 
Fabius Persicus . . . . ripam cippis positis terminaverunt a trigario ad 
pontem Agrippae. 

(13) Consolatio ad Liviam (first century): 

217 armataeque rogum celebrant de more cohortes: 
has pedes exequias reddit equesque duci.... 
221 ipse pater flavis Tiberinus adhorruit undis, 
sustulit et medio nubilus amne caput. .... 
226 πνὶχ capit adiectas alveus altus aquas. 
iamque rogi flammas extinguere fluminis ictu, 
corpus et intactum tollere certus erat: 
sustentabat aquas cursusque inhibebat equorum, 
ut posset toto proluere amne rogum. 
sed Mavors templo vicinus et accola campi 
haec dixit siccis verba neque ipse genis . . . 

Ancient writers agree that the campus Martius was consecrated 
to Mars and took its name from that fact. In this campus was 
an altar of Mars, ara Martis, dating from very early times, the 
existence of which is vouched for by (1), (2), (3), and (4). In 
(1) and (4) there is no indication of the part of the campus in 
which the altar stood; in (2) there is an indication but unfor- 
tunately the problem is complicated by the introduction of another 
unknown quantity, the porta Fontinalis. No explanation of this 
passage seems probable except that one of the earliest porticus of 
which we have any record was long enough to reach from the 
porta Fontinalis to the altar of Mars. Further evidence for a 
porta Fontinalis is found in Paul. Hp. 45: Fontinalia fontium 
sacra unde et Romae Fontinalis porta, and in some inscriptions of 


THe ABA MarTiIs ~ 67 


the imperial period, but there is nowhere any direct statement 
that this was a gate in the Servian wall. That is simply taken 
for granted. It was formerly located on the slope of the Quirinal, 
near the via Magnanapoli, but recent topographers have followed 
Halsen in placing it at the northeast corner of the Capitoline, 
where the road came through from the Forum into the campus 
Martius—the road recently discovered by Boni under the founda- 
tions of the column of Trajan. The objection to this location is 
that, now at any rate, there appear to be no springs in the immedi- 
ate neighborhood, whereas the name seems to have been given to 
the gate for precisely that characteristic of the locality. Whether 
the gate was here or a little further to the northeast, is perhaps 
not of great importance so far as the site of the altar is concerned, 
provided it was in the Servian wall at all From Cicero De nat. 
deor. 3. 52, we learn that Cn. Papirius Naso dedicated a temple 
to Fons in the year 251 3. o. from the booty taken in Corsica. 
It is easy to connect this with the porta Fontinalis, but, on the 
other hand, in view of the numerous fontes in Rome, it seems 
hazardous to press so indefinite a statement into the service of 
any particular theory. In spite of the ordinary meaning of per- 
duxerunt ad (2), it is perhaps possible that Livy intended to say 
nothing more definite than that the porticus extended toward the 
altar without actually reaching it. 'We must remember that, with 
the exception of the Saepta and possibly two or three temples 
whose location is a matter of conjecture, there were probably no 
buildings northwest of the northeast corner of the Capitoline, 
between it and the river, at this period (193 B. ©.). | 
The uncertainty of this passage has led a recent writer (Mor- 
purgo, in the Bullettino Comunale, 1906, pp. 209-23) to develop 
the theory that porta Fontinalis was only a popular designation 
of the porta Capena, due to the fact that in that part of the city 
the springs were very numerous and celebrated. The campus 
mentioned was the campus minor of Catullus (55. 3), and the ara 
one erected at the side of this campus nearest to the city walls, 
and opposite the famous temple of Mars that was built at an early 
date outside the porta OCapena. This explanation, however, is 
based upon too many assumptions to commend itself as valid. 


68 SAMUEL BALL PLATNER 


I think that we cannot escape the conclusion that Livy refers to 
an altar in the campus Martius. 

From (3) it is natural to infer that the curule chairs of the 
censors were set up near the place where the election had been held. 
This was the site of the later Saepta, although we have record of 
the comitia being held elsewhere in the campus Martius, in Aes- 
culeto, or tn luco Petelino. As Livy says nothing about this 
comitia, it was probably held in the usual place, but this must 
have been quite extensive as the later Saepta was 440 metres long. 
The ara Martis might have been anywhere between the Capitoline 
and the Pantheon, and still be near the comitia. The usual loca- 
tion of the ara, therefore, has been near the piazza del Gest with 
Halsen, or directly east of the Pantheon on the north side of the 
via del Seminario with Lanciani. 

We have now the two passages in Ovid to take into account, 
the first of which (5) refers to the earlier Equiria that occurred 
on February 27, a festival celebrated by races in the campus Mar- 
tius, ‘‘which the god himself looks out upon in his own field.” 
The natural explanation of this is that the race course was within 
sight of the temple of the god. (6) states that the second 
Equiria, on March 14, took place in the campus “against which 
on one side the Tiber rushes with his winding floods.’’ There are 
three bends in the Tiber to which these words might apply, that 
at the piazza Nicosia, that at the pons Neronianus, and that at the 
Ghetto. The last is excluded for evident reasons, and of the other 
two it is entirely probable that the first is meant. Ovid says that 
the field in which the races were held stretched as far as the bend | 
in the river northwest of the Pantheon, that is from the bank of 
the river to a point so near the shrine of Mars that the god could 
be said to look forth from it upon the sport. In accordance with 
this interpretation the Equiria is ordinarily located directly north 
and northeast of the site of the Pantheon and the thermae Neroni- 
anae. If it extended as far south as the present via del Seminario, 
the distance from it to the supposed site of the porta Fontinalis 
would be about 550 metres, and about 350 metres to the site 
assigned by Halsen to the original altar of Mars. The porticus 
of 193 B. o. in that case need have been only 200 metres in length. 


Tue Aga Martis 69 


Hitherto it has been generally assumed that the ara must be 
located somewhere on this line, and at a point such that the length 
of the porticus need not have been greater than was reasonable for 
that period and yet near enough to the Equiria to make Ovid’s 
prospicit intelligible and appropriate. 

For his new theory of a second temple of Mars in the campus 
Martius Halsen relies principally upon what he regards as evidence 
in the Consolatio ad Liviam (13). The poet is describing the 
obsequies of Drusus, whose ashes were placed in the mausoleum 
of Augustus, as we know from Dio Cassius, and he says that the 
Tiber in his grief purposed to overflow his banks and extinguish 
the fire on the pyre of his favorite Drusus, but that Mars appeared 
and forbade him to carry out the threat. The rogus (217) is 
undoubtedly the ustrinum of the mausoleum of Augustus, for 
which we have epigraphical evidence, since it is unlikely that, if 
the ashes of Drusus were to be placed in the imperial mausoleum, 
his body would be burned anywhere except in the imperial cre- 
matory attached thereto. At any rate it would hardly have been 
burned at any great distance from it, and just below the site of 
the mausoleum is the point where the river is most likely to over- 
flow its banks. This according to the poet is what the Tiber pro- 
poses to do, but Mars restrains him, Mars vicinus templo et accola 
campt. This, Hdalsen thinks, proves that there was a shrine of 
Mars near the pyre of Drusus, a long way from the place where 
he puts the old ara. To this second temple he assigns the refer- 
ences in the two passages from Ovid (5), (6), and finds confirma- 
tion for his view in certain other allusions. 

In the first place he thinks that in the well-known description 
of the sacrifice of the October horse (7) we can hardly understand 
the allusion to the speed with which the tail was borne along, if it 
had to be carried only the 800 metres from the ara to the Regia, 
whereas the distance from the assumed site of the second temple 
was twice that, and enough to make the reference intelligible. 
A swift runner, however, undoubtedly provided for the purpose, 
could easily run the longer distance in not more than six minutes, 
and with any care in the holding of the tail, no more blood need 
be lost in six minutes than in three. But asa matter of fact, I do 


70 SAMUEL BALL PLATNER 


not see how this passage can be cited as evidence for a second 
temple, for this sacrifice was one of the very oldest in Rome, dating 
back to a very early period when it is wholly improbable that there 
was a second shrine of Mars to dispute the supremacy with the 
original altar. The whole rite and its description are primitive, 
and belong to a time when there could have been only one altar 
of the god in the campus. 

There is, however, another reference (8) to this sacrifice, that 
Halsen also introduces as evidence for his view. In the calendar 
of Philocalus (354 a. p.) we find this entry under October 15: 
equus ad nixas fit—evidently an allusion to the old sacrifice of 
the October horse which seems to have been preserved through 
the long struggle with Christianity, or else to have been revived — 
in the fourth century. The only nixae known to us is the 
Ciconiae nixae, a term used to designate a certain district of the 
city, probably an open square, in which there was a statue, or 
perhaps a relief on one of the surrounding buildings, of two or 
more storks with crossed bills. It occurs in the Nofittia in this 
series: campum Martium, trigarium, ciconiae nixas, pantheum. 
In his enumeration of the buildings of the ninth region, the cata- 
loguer is passing from those of the circus Flaminius northward 
through the Stadium of Domitian, where he turns northeast and 
proceeds to mention the campus Martius (a name applied at that 
date to that part of the whole campus which lay between the Tri- 
garium and the ara Pacis), the Trigarium, the Ciconiae nixae, 
and the Pantheon. As the Pantheon is south of the campus Mar- 
tius, so far as any indication from the Notitia goes, the Ciconiae 
nixae might lie to the north of the district marked on our maps 
as the campus Equiriorum, or at its southeastern end near the 
Pantheon. What its presence in the Notitia does show is that it 
was an important district, naturally to be mentioned next after 
the Trigarium, whether it lay to the south or north of the latter. 
We have, however, an inscription (9) of the fourth or fifth century, 
found near S. Silvestro and supposed to refer to the great temple 
of the Sun, of which the biographer of Aurelian says (Vit. Aur., 
48): in porticibus templi Solis fiscalia vina ponuntur. Without 
going into the disputed question of the site of this temple, it 


THe Aga Martis 11 


seems clear that wines imported into Rome were brought to a 
storehouse in its portico from the Ciconiae, which appears to be 
the same as the Ciconiae nixae of the Notttia and the ad nixas of 
the calendar. Now if these wines were brought from any place 
near the Trigarium, after being imported, that place was probably 
on the bank of the river, and we cannot be far astray in accept- 
ing the usual location, near the piazza Nicosia. 

The Trigarium is explained by a gloss in Philoxenus (10), and 
a terminal cippus (12) of the first century clearly implies that 
this open space was on the bank of the river. From its use, and 
from its position in the catalogue of the Nofitia, it must have 
been near the campus Equiriorum. This is consistent with the 
identification of the Ciconiae nixae and the piazza Nicosia. Rely- 
ing then on the notice in the calendar that the sacrifice of the 
October horse took place here, Halsen maintains that this indi- 
cates that the old rite had survived all attempts of the Christians 
to suppress it, and that there must have been a temple or altar of 
Mars close by. It seems to me, however, that another explana- 
tion is the more natural. If the old altar had survived until the 
fourth century, and if the sacrifice had continued to be celebrated 
there, it would undoubtedly have been described as taking place 
- ad aram Martis. If there had been another temple of Mars near 
the Ciconiae nixae, the calendar would surely have spoken of the 
sacrifice as taking place at or near that temple. There would have 
been no reason for locating it ad nixas if there had been any 
shrine of the god himself near by, where the rite actually took 
place. The omission of any such reference seems to me direct 
evidence against Halsen’s view. 

Returning to the Consolatio ad Liviam (18), Halsen, as has 
been remarked, interprets the interference of Mars templo vicinus 
et accola camp1 as direct and conclusive evidence that there was 
a temple of the god close to the funeral pyre. I think, on the 
other hand, that the reason for the interference of Mars is to be 
found in his relation to Rome itself, to the whole campus Martius, 
and to the house of Augustus. There would be little propriety 
in singling out Mars simply because his temple happened to be 
the nearest at hand, and if that were not the reason, it would make 


72 SAMUEL BALL PLATNER 


little difference how far away his shrine stood, provided it was 
near enough to justify the words vicinus templo et accola campzt. 
This might properly be said of a shrine standing anywhere in a 
very considerable part of the campus. There were a number of 
shrines in the campus Martius, north of the circus Flaminius, in 
the first century—the date to which the composition of the Con- 
solatio is to be assigned—dedicated to Neptune, Vulcan, Fortuna, 
Juno, Jupiter Stator, Juturna, Minerva, and Isis and Serapis. 
To none of these gods could any such interest in the funeral of 
Drusus be assigned as to Mars. This line, therefore, need not be 
interpreted as applying only to a temple ad nizas, and none of 
the evidence thus far adduced for the existence of such a temple 
is conclusive. 

There is another point, however, which no one seems to have 
noticed. When the Fast: (5), (6) were written, at the beginning 
of the first century, there were between Halsen’s site of the old 
ara Martis and the Equiria the thermae and Pantheon of Agrippa, 
the temple of Minerva Chalcidica, the first temple of Isis and 
Serapis, and the great Saepta Iulia, as well as the porticus Argo- 
nautarum and the basilica of Neptune. Now these structures 
completely surrounded the assumed site of the ara, and a glance 
at the map will convince anyone of the impropriety of Ovid’s 
using the verb prospicit (ii. 860) of the god enshrined at this 
point, provided any definite topographical sense is to be assigned 
to the word at all. It is not the distance between this site and 
the Equiria that is the objection, but the fact that the former was 
quite cut off at this time from the latter. I believe that Ovid 
does give prospicere a distinct local meaning in this passage, as 
is his custom elsewhere in the Fasti in similar expressions (cf. 
vi. 209), and, if this be true, we have but two alternatives, either 
to place the original and only altar of Mars at the southern end 
of the campus Equiriorum, east of the Pantheon, and north of 
the temple of Minerva Chalcidica, and not at the piazza del Gest, 
or else with Htlsen to assume the existence of a second shrine as 
early as the time of Ovid. This latter hypothesis carries with it 
the further assumption that when the poet spoke in this way of 
Mars, people in general would apply his words to this second 


THe Ara ΜΑΒΤῚΒ 73 


shrine and not to the famous old altar, consecrated by antiquity — 
certainly an improbable assumption. Now if my objections to the 
validity of Halsen’s arguments for the existence of a second shrine 
are well taken, there can be no objection raised against locating 
the ara near the Pantheon unless such an objection can be found 
in the passage from Livy (2). If we admit that the porta Fonti- 
nalis was probably in the Servian wall at the northeast corner of 
the Capitoline, and locate the ara near the Pantheon, the porticus 
must have been about 500 metres long to satisfy the meaning of (2). 
This is not an excessive length, when we compare the length of 
the porticus of the empire. Moreover, the early porticus were 
probably not at all elaborate, hardly more than covered walks, and 
it does not seem hazardous to assume that this particular porticus 
was long enough to afford shelter to pedestrians most of the way 
from the gate to the altar. 

My conclusion is that on the whole there is as yet no sufficient 
evidence for assuming the existence of a second shrine of Mars in 
the campus Martius (always excepting that of Callaicus), and 
that the early ara probably stood just east of the Pantheon. 


WersTEen Reserve UNIVERSITY 


GREEK AND LATIN ETYMOLOGIES 


By Francis A. Woop 


@ 


1. Gk. ἁρπάξω ‘tear, snatch, seize, catch,’ ἅρπη ‘bird of prey,’ 
ἁρπαλέος ‘grasping, greedy; drawing to oneself, attractive, allur- 
ing, charming,’ etc. are referred by Prellwitz Hi. Wid.’ 54, to 
Lat. rapio, leaving the rough breathing unexplained. Walde, 
Et. Wtb. s. v. rapio, regards ἁρπάξω as a derivative of a base 
srep-, srp-, a by-form of rep- in rapio, etc. I see no reason, how- 
ever, why we may not connect Gk. ἁρπάξω͵ ‘tear, snatch, etc.’ 
with Lat. sarpio, sarpo ‘cut off, trim, prune.’ Primitive pruning, 
as well as reaping and shearing, was a pulling, tearing rather than 
a cutting in our sense of the term. Compare Lat. carpo with 
Lith. kerpi& ‘schneide etwas mit der Scheere,’ and such words as 
ON. ryia ‘den Schafen die Wolle ausreissen,’ Lat. vello, etc. 

If then we combine ἁρπάξω and sarpio, this brings us to serpo, 
etc. (cf. Schréder JF. XVII, 462 ff.). We have then serp- 
‘draw together, wind, creep; draw to oneself, grasp (ἁρπαλέος) ; 
pull off, tear off, prune’ (sarpio). Cf. MHG. krimmen ‘die 
Klauen zum Fange krimmen, mit gekrfmmten Klauen oder 
Fingern packen, verwunden, kratzen, reissen; refl. sich winden, 
krimmen, kriechen;’ MHG. klimpfen ‘fest zusammenziehen, 
dricken, einengen,’ Eng. clamp, Scotch climp ‘hook, snatch;’ 
OE. wrestan ‘twist, Eng. wrest; Lat. volvo, Goth. wilwan 
‘rauben.”’ 

2. Gk. ἄῤῥατος ‘unbending, firm’ may be from *n-urtos, base. 
yert- ‘turn, bend’ in Elean βρατάναν: τορύνην (Hesych.), Lat. 
verto, etc. 

8. Gk. δάκτυλος ‘finger, toe’ is referred doubtfully by Prell- 
witz, following Curtius, to δέκομαι. Brugmann assumes for the. 
primary meaning ‘Zinke, Zacke,’ and compares ON. tindr ‘Zinke, 
Zacke, Spitze’ (cf. JF. XI, 284 f.), deriving δάκτυλος from an 
earlier *Satxvdos, like τίκτω from βτιτκω. We may adopt the 
primary meaning assumed by B., without resorting to the meta- 
(CLassIOAL PxHILo.oey ΠῚ, January, 1908) 74 


GREEK AND LATIN ETYMOLOGIES “Ὁ 


thesis, by comparing ON., Norw. fange ‘tang of a knife, a spit, 
or projection of land,’ whence ME. tang(e) ‘point, sting, dagger,’ 
Eng. tang ‘point, projection; esp., a long and slender projecting 
strip, tongue, or prong, forming part of an object and serving to 
hold or secure it to another.’ 

4. Gk. δόλος ‘wile, trick, treachery,’ Lat. dolus ‘wile, fraud, 
deceit,’ ON. ἐάϊ ‘deceit’ are from a base del-, dol-, variously 
explained (cf. Prellwitz 119; Walde 182). As words for ‘trick, 
wile’ naturally come from ‘move quickly, sway, waver, etc.,’ we 
may compare OE. getel ‘swift, prompt,’ OHG. gizal ‘leicht, 
schnell, behende,’ Goth. un-fals ‘unfogsam, ungelehrig,’ and also 
OE. ftealt ‘unsteady, heaving; precarious, fleeting,’ fealtian ‘be 
unsteady, not stand firm,’ etc. 

5. Gk. ἐπίσταμαι ‘understand’ is usually regarded as made up 
of ἐπί and torn. According to Brugmann C‘rdr. ΤΙ, 889, it is a 
compound of ἐπί and the unreduplicated -σταμαι. Wackernagel 
KZ. 33, 20, regards it as an originally reduplicated form " ἐπισί- 
σταμαι, " ἐπίσταμαι, with later shortening of ¢. 

In suggesting a third explanation I will first show how the 
meaning developed. In the literal sense ἐφέστημι means ‘set on, 
set over, place upon, set by or near to,’ and in the middle voice 
and the intransitive tenses, ‘stand on, over, near, by, etc.’ The 
word is used figuratively in ἐφίστημι τὴν γνώμην,----τὴν διάνοιαν 
‘apply one’s thoughts to, attend,’ and so frequently used abso- 
lutely: ἐφιστάναι ‘attend, (animum) attendere,’ ἐπιστῆσαί τινα ἐπί 
τι ‘call one’s attention to a thing.’ From these uses come ἐπὶ- 
σταδόν ‘attentively, earnestly,’ ἐπιστασία ‘oversight, command; 
attention, care,’ ἐπίστασις (‘stopping; resting, halt); attention, 
care, charge, diligence, thought,’ etc. From these was abstracted 
the verb ἐπίσταμαι ‘fix one’s attention or thoughts on a thing, be 
assured, believe, know, understand, know how.’ This explanation 
accounts for the augment in ἦπιστάμην, ἠπιστήθην, for the verb 
was felt as a simplex. 

Eng. understand, NHG. verstehen, which are related in the 
second part of the words with ἐπίσταμαι, have a different develop- 
ment of meaning (cf. author, Mod. Lang. Notes XIV, 257 ff,, 
XV, 27 ff.). 


716 Francis A. Woop 


6. Gk. κέδαφος ‘shrewd, artful,’ also written κέίνδαφος, σκίνδαφος, 
whence κιδάφη ‘fox,’ no doubt meant primarily ‘separating, dis- 
cerning, gescheit,’ and may be derived from the base sqgeid- in 
κίδναμαι, σκίδναμαι ‘be separated, scattered,’ σκιδαρόν: ἀραιόν 
(Hesych.), Lett. skaidit ‘verdtnnen,’ skaida ‘Span,’ Lith. 
skédziu ‘verdtinne; trenne, scheide,’ etc. (cf. author, 1. a®: αἴ: 
a*u 137). Similarly from a parallel base sqeit- come MHG. 
schiden ‘auseinandergehen, scheiden; entscheiden,’ geschide 
‘gescheit, schlau.’ 

7. Gk. κέραφος- ἀλώπηξ (Hesych.) may likewise be referred 
to OE. scitran ‘distinguish, decide; get rid of,’ sctr ‘shire, district,’ 
OHG. skéri ‘sagax, acer ad investigandum.’ 

8. Gk. μάρη ‘hand,’ μάρις ‘a liquid measure,’ εὐμαρής ‘easy, 
convenient, habilis, εὐχερής᾽ are probably from a base mer- ‘press, 
hold, grasp, seize, etc.’ Compare ἀμείρω ‘deprive,’ ἀμέρδω ‘de- 
prive; pluck,’ μέρδει- κωλύει, βλάπτει, μείρεται" στέρεται; ἀμέργω 
‘strip, pluck off,’ Skt. πιγγάξτ ‘wischt, reibt, ab,’ Lat. merges, etc. ; 
Gk. βράξαι: συλλαβεῖν, βρακεῖν: συνιέναι, δυσ βράκανον: δυσχερές, 
᾿δύσληπτον, δυσκατανόητον (Hesych.), Skt. mrgdti ‘berthrt, fasst . 
an;’ Gk. μάρπτω ‘grasp, hold, seize, MHG. merwen ‘anbinden, 
anschirren, vereinigen; verschwagern’ (cf. author, Mod. Lang. 
Notes XXI, 41). The base mer- of the above is the same as in 
- Skt. myrndti ‘zermalmt, zerschligt,’ Gk. μαραίνω ‘crush, waste 
away.’ 

9. With Gk. μῴρδει, ἀμέρδω of the above compare Skt. mdrdati, 
mydndtt, ‘reibt, zerdraickt, reibt auf,’ Av. maradaité ‘vernichtet.’ 

10. Gk. μένω, Lat. maneo ‘remain,’ Skt. man- ‘z6gern.’ etc. 
are supposed to be identical with ‘“*men- ‘denken’ durch den 
Mittelbegriff ‘sinnend dastehn’”’ (cf. Walde Ht. Wtb. 365 and 
references). But as men- ‘remain’ goes back to a very early 
period, we may discard this explanation as presenting too modern 
a view. At the time when men- ‘remain’ came into use, men- 
‘think’ implied an entirely different idea from ours. To us 
thought implies abstraction and is ordinarily accompanied by a 
quiet behavior. But to the primitive man the quiet bearing and 
abstracted look would be a mark of stupidity not of mental activity. 

But we may still combine men- ‘think’ and men- ‘remain’ from 


GREEK AND LATIN ETYMOLOGIES 77 


acommon starting-point. For the former denoted mental excite- 
ment, fierceness, courage, etc. But even this was secondary, since 
the base men- must have referred primarily to the quick motions 
of the body as indicating the inward emotions. Thus Gk. μένος 
is used in Homer denoting force, strength of body, esp. as shown 
in quick movement and exertion, as: μένος τε καὶ ἀλκή, μ. χειρῶν; 
of animals: πορδάλιος μ., βοὸς μ. etc.; force, strength, power of 
things (sun, fire, river, storm, spear, etc.). Hence fierceness, 
impetuosity, courage; eagerness, wish, intent; mind, temper, dis- 
position, ete. 

The base men- must therefore have denoted primarily quick 
movement. From such a meaning would naturally arise ‘waver, 
hesitate, delay, remain,’ and this we have in Skt. man- ‘zdgern,’ 
Gk. μένω ‘remain,’ etc. For this change in meaning compare the 
following: Skt. vdficati ‘wankt’: Gk. ὄκνος ‘delay, hesitation’ 
(L. Meyer I, 502).—Goth. hahan ‘hangen lassen, schweben 
lassen,’ Skt. gankhaté schwankt, zweifelt, ist besorgt’: Lat. 
cunctor.—OK. windan ‘wind, twist’: wandian ‘hesitate, etc.’— 
ON. geisa ‘witen,’ Goth. usgaisjan ‘erschrecken,’ ON. geiske 
‘Schreck’: Lith. gazsztu ‘zaudere, zdgere, schwinde,’ Lat. haereo. 

11. Gk. ὅρμος ‘roadstead, haven’ meant primarily, according 
to Fick, ‘Auslauf’ (cf. Prellwitz Ht. Wtb. 337), and is related to 
ὁρμή ‘assault, attack, impetus, impulse,’ ὁρμάω ‘set in motion; 
rush,’ Skt. sdrma-s ‘das Fliessen’ (= Gk. ὅρμος), stsarti ‘rennt, 
eilt, fliesst,’ etc. The connection is probably correct, but the 
primary meaning was perhaps rather ‘a place where ships may 
ride at anchor, road, roadstead.’ Compare OK. ridan ‘ride; swing,’ 
brim-rad ‘sea,’ ME. rade, NE. road, roadstead ‘place where ships 
may ride at anchor,’ MLG. réde ‘offener Hafen’ (: vor dem anker 
riden ‘ride at anchor’). 

12. Gk. πέτρα ‘rock, ledge or shelf of rock’ is compared by 
Prellwitz 8. v., following Fick BB. III, 166, and others, with 
Lat. triquetrus. On this connection cf. Walde Et. Wib. 8. v. 
petigo, triquetrus. Under the former word Walde assumes a 
root *pet- ‘rauh,’ to which he refers Gk. πέτρα. But until we 
find more evidence for a root *pef- ‘rough,’ we shall do better to 
refer πέτρα to a different meaning. 


18 Francis A. Woop 


A common meaning to which words for rock go back is ‘ex- 
tended,’ which might give either ‘projecting’ or ‘flat.’ So the 
following: Gk. wAa€ ‘flat surface (of land or water), flat top of a 
hill, flat stone, tombstone,’ ON. flaga ‘flagstone,’ OHG. fluoh 
‘Felsen,’ base pela- ‘extend; flatten’ in Lat. planus, etc., to which 
may belong ChSl. planina ‘Berg,’ and also ON. fiall ‘Berg,’ 
OHG. felis, felisa ‘Felsen,’ Gk. méAXa- XM0s.—OPruss. kalso 
‘Fladen,’ ON. hella ‘platter Stein’ (cf. Zupitza Germ. Gutt. 118). 

So Gk. πέτρα may have meant primarily ‘ledge,’ and then 
‘rock, cliff’ in general, and may be compared with pet- ‘extend, 
stretch out’ in Gk. πετάννυμε, etc. Or we may start with ‘extend, 
project,’ and find parallels in Lat. eminére: mons; Lith. kelix 
‘hebe’: kdlnas ‘Berg,’ Goth. hallus ‘Fels,’ Lat. collis, ete. 

18. Gk. ῥέθος ‘limb; body; face, countenance’ is left unex- 
plained by Prellwitz. It may be from *uredhos ‘growth, form.’ 
In that case compare Skt. vdrdhat: ‘wachst, mehrt sich, starkt 
sich, gedeiht,’ Av. varad- ‘grow,’ etc. For meaning compare 
Goth. liudan ‘wachsen,’ Skt. rddhati ’wachst, steigt,’ Av. raoda- 
‘Wuchs, Ansehen,’ OS. lid ‘Ausseres,’ Goth. ludja ‘Antlitz.’ 

14. Gk. σέβομαι ‘feel awe before, venerate, worship; fear, be 
ashamed,’ σοβέω ‘drive away, scare; shake, beat; intr. strut, 
bustle along; pass. be vehemently excited,’ σόβη ‘horse’s tail,’ etc., 
have meanings that are not easily combined with Skt. tydjati 
‘verlasst,’ fydjas ‘Verlassenheit, Not, Gefahr.’ The Gk. words 
may rather be from a base tueg¥. Compare Skt. tujdti, tufydt 
‘drangt, stdsst, treibt an; Med. in schnelle Bewegung kommen,’ 
tudngati ‘springt,’ tufijd-s ‘Anstoss, Ruck,’ ON. Joka ‘bewegen; 
Platz machen, weichen,’ /ukla ‘fahlen, befthlen,’ OE. bocerian 
‘run about’ (cf. Mod. Lang Notes XVIII, 16). 

15. Gk. σκολόπαξ ‘a large kind of snipe’ is omitted by Prell- 
witz. It no doubt is a derivative of σκόλοψ ‘anything pointed: 
pale, stake.’ Compare OHG. snabul ‘Schnabel’: snepfo ‘Schnepfe;’ 
MHG. snipfen ‘schnappen, Sw. snipig ‘spitz, spitzig,’ snipa 
‘schmaler, spitzer Kahn’: ON. -snipa, ME. snipe ‘snipe;’ MHG. 
snitzen ‘in Stticke schneiden; schnitzen,’ snitz ‘Schnitt, Schnitte’: 
OE. snite ‘snipe’ (perhaps with ¢ from ft). 

16. Gk. σῶμα ‘body’ from *tydmnt ‘swelling’ (cf. Prellwitz 


GREEK AND LATIN ETYMOLOGIES 79 


Β. v.) resembles in formation Lat. tomentum, ‘stuffing for cushions’ 
from *touemnto-m, a derivative of the base teu- in Lat. tumeo, 
Skt. ¢aviti, tduti ‘ist stark, hat Macht,’ etc. (cf. Walde 630). 

17. Gk. φείδομαι (with gen.) ‘draw back from, turn away from; 
abstain from, spare; (with inf.) refrain, cease’ is regarded as the 
same word as Skt. bhindtti, bhedati ‘spaltet, teilt,’ Lat. jindo, 
Goth. beitan ‘beissen’ (cf. Prellwitz Hi. γΡ δ. 484; Uhlenbeck 
Ai. Wtb. 201; Walde Et. Wtb. 225). I should rather compare 
the base bhet- ‘shrink, fear, etc.’ in Lith. baidag ‘scheuche,’ Lat. 
foedus ‘ugly, horrible, foul,’ Skt. bhdyate, bibheti ‘farchtet sich’ 
(regularly with abl. or gen.), bhirtd-3, bhilu-s ‘schtichtern, feig, 
sich scheuend vor,’ Lith. bailus ‘furchtsam, scheu,’ ON. bila 
‘zagen, nachgeben, nachlassen,’ etc. 

18. Gk. φοιτάω ‘go to and fro, roam about; rave, be delirious; 
go to, visit,’ φοῖτος ‘roaming about; madness, frenzy’ may be 
compared with MLG. bister (pre-Germ. *bhit-tro-) ‘umherirrend, 
vom rechten Wege abweichend ; verwildert, verkommen, unzichtig ; 
elend, schlecht,’ bisteren ‘umherirren, irre gehen,’ MG. bister 
‘darbend, verlassen,’ MDu. bister ‘verstért, verwirrt.’ These are 
from the base * bhoit-, * bhito-, Skt. bhitd-s ‘sich farchtend,’ from 
bhei- in Skt. bhdyaté, bibheti ‘farchtet sich,’ OHG. bibén ‘ beben, 
zittern,’ etc. 

19. Gk. φύγεθλον ‘swelling and inflammation of the glands’ 
may be for "φλύγεθλον as Prellwitz 8. v. assumes. But as the 
base bheug-, beug- ‘bend, etc.’ also has the meaning ‘round out, 
swell,’ φύγεθλον may rather be a derivative of this base. Compare 
MHG. bich ‘Rumpf, Bauch,’ i. 6. ‘swelling, protuberance,’ buch 
‘Schlagel, Keule (eines Kalbes),’ Skt. bhija-s ‘Arm, Rassel (des 
Elefanten), Ast,’ bhujdti ‘biegt, beugt,’ bhugna-s ‘gebogen, 
gekrimmt,’ etc. In Gk. this verb took on the meaning ‘(bend), 
give way, flee;’ but ‘bend out, swell’ is preserved in φύγεθλον. 

The parallel base bkeug- develops similarly: Goth. biugan 
‘biegen,’ ON. bogenn ‘gebogen,’ bogna ‘sich beugen, weichen’: 
Dan. bugne ‘sich biegen, strotzen, schwellen, MHG. biuhsen 
‘aufblahen.’ 

Other bases bheux- have the meaning ‘swell’: Goth. uf-bauljan 
‘aufschwellen machen, hochmfitig machen,’ OE. byle, OHG. billa 


80 Francis A. Woop 


‘Beule;’ Skt. bhiugnu-s ‘wachsend’ (: bhdvati ‘gedeiht, entsteht, 
wird’), MHG. bis ‘Aufgeblasenheit, schwellende Falle,’ busch 
‘Knattel Wulst,’ ON. beysinn ‘dick, gross;) MHG. butzen 
‘turgere,’ btuzen ‘aufschwellen, hervorragen,’ ON. δέν ‘Holzklotz;’ 
Skt. bhumd ‘Falle, Menge,’ Gk. φῦμα ‘growth: esp. an inflamed 
swelling on the body, tumor, boil,’ etc. (cf. Mod. Lang. Notes 
XIX, 4 ff.). 

20. Gk. χάρις ‘favor, grace; kindness, goodwill; gratitude, 
thanks,’ χαρίεις ‘acceptable, agreeable, pleasing, graceful, lovely,’ 
xap Copa: ‘gratify, show favor, do something agreeable’ are usually 
connected with χαίρω, Lat. horior, Skt. hdryati, etc. (cf. e. g. 
Hirt Idg. Abl. 455; Prellwitz Hit. Wtb.’ 500; Walde Et. Wib. 
289). If these words are related, they must show meanings that 
are secondary to those of Gk. χάρις. For the meanings of χάρις 
are not easily derivable from those of χαέρω, etc. But leaving 
that question in abeyance, I will champion another connection for 
χάρις which is an old one now discarded (certainly older than 
Curtius 158, Vanicek 93). 

Gk. χάρις was formerly regarded as related to Lat. gratés 
‘thanks,’ gratia ‘favor, grace; agreeableneas, loveliness; kindness; 
thanks, gratitude, etc.,’ and the words certainly are very closely 
related in meaning. This is true not only of the general signfi- 
cation of the words but also of special uses. Thus Gk. χάριτες 
‘Graces’ is translated by Lat. Gratine; χάριν with gen. by gratia 
with gen., etc. But this positive evidence is strengthened by the 
fact that no other explanation has been given for gratés, gratia, 
gratus that accounts for their meanings. For Lat. gratus 
‘acceptable, pleasing, beloved; thankful, grateful’ is not well 
explained as meaning originally ‘gepriesen, begrfisst, willkommen 
geheissen’ (so Walde 275). 

Adopting the old connection we may take another step. Gk. 
χάρις, Lat. gratia from *ghf-tid meant primarily ‘acceptableness, 
agreeableness, etc.,’ and belong to the base ghere- ‘take, grasp’ in 
Skt. hdrati ‘nimmf, halt; schafft herbei, holt, bringt dar; nimmt 
weg, entreisst, raubt; nimmt in Empfang, eignet sich an, gewinnt, | 
reisst hin, entzickt,’ hrid-s ‘genommen, etc.,’ -hara-s ‘nehmend; 
entfihrend, hinreissend, entzfickend; vernichtend,’ haras ‘Griff,’ 


GREEK AND LATIN ETYMOLOGIES 81 


Gk. εὐχερής ‘easily handled, yielding,’ yelp ‘hand,’ Osc. heriiad 
‘capiat,’ etc. (for other related words see Walde 130 f.). 

For the development in meaning seen in gratus, gratia, χάρις 
compare the following: Lat. accipio ‘take,’ acceptus ‘welcome, 
agreeable, acceptable,’ often joined with gratus.——Goth. andni- 
man ‘annehmen, andanéms ‘angenehm.’—ON. /iggia ‘annehmen, 
empfangen,’ begr ‘gefallig, willkommen,’ ῥώσδ ‘Annehmlichkeit, 
Gunst.’ — Lat. tango ‘touch, handle,’ Gk. reraywv ‘taking hold of,’ 
Ir. to1g ‘angenehm,’ OE. Panc ‘thought; favor, grace; pleasure, 
satisfaction, delight; thanks’ (cf. no. 34).—To these add Skt. 
hdrati ‘nimmt, etc.,’ Osc. hervad ‘capiat’: Lat gratus, gratia, 
Gk. χάρις. 

21. Lat. colostra, -trum ‘the first milk in the breasts of ani- 
mals after delivery, beestings’ is formed with the suffix -tra, -tro- 
from a nominal stem *kyelos-. Compare OE. hwelian ‘suppurate; 
make to suppurate,’ Lith. szvelnis ‘ weich, sanft anzufassen;’ and 
for meaning, Lat. pus ‘white and viscous matter of a sore, pus’: 
Gk. πῦος ‘beestings’ (: πύω ‘make to suppurate’), πῦαρ, πῦετία 
‘beestings.’ 

22. For Lat. febris ‘fever,’ which has been variously explained, 
I venture another attempt. It may come from *bhes-ri-s ‘a 
trembliug, shaking,’ from a base bhes- ‘move rapidly’ in Lat. 
Jestino ‘hasten, be quick,’ confestim ‘speedily,’ ON. bisa, basa 
‘sich anstrengen,’ OE. bisig, Du. bezig ‘busy, active.’ 

This base bhes- is perhaps from bhues-. Compare Νοῦν. baus 
‘hitzig, heftig, tbermittig, stolz,’ bausa ‘darauf losgehen,’ bauste — 
‘unverzagt und heftig heransttrmende Person,’ ON. bustla ‘bustle,’ 
Sw. dial. bés ‘wild, verwegen daherfahrend,’ Skt. bhigati ‘bewegt 
sich, bemaiht sich, ist geschaftig,’ etc. 

23. Lat. importinus ‘inconvenient, unsuitable; uncivil, rude, 
harsh, etc.’ is, according to the old explanation, referred to the 
negative in- and portus. Thisis doubted by Walde Ht. Wib. 298, 
who sees in it only a ‘‘Kontrastbildung zu opportinus.” That 
both importunus and opportinus are derivatives of portus admits 
of but little doubt, not, however, in the sense ‘haven, port,’ but in 
the original meaning ‘entrance, approach,’ probably felt even in 
classical Latin, and plainly seen in Av. paratug ‘Durchgang, Hin- 


82 Franois A. Woop 


gang, Pforte, Furt, Bracke.’ Hence importinus naturally meant 
‘inaccessible, unapproachable,’ and then ‘inconvenient, unfit, ete.’ 
When applied to men it meant ‘unapproachable, repellent, uncivil, 
rude, harsh, etc.’ Opportinus as naturally meant ‘accessible, 
approachable, convenient, etc.’ From ‘accessible’ comes also 
‘open, exposed’ in such expressions as: Romanus ... . opportu- 
nus huic eruption: fut, Liv. vi. 24; opportuniora morbis corpora, 
Plin. xviii. 7. 12. 

24. Lat. lapzt ‘dolore afficit,’ which Conway IF. IT, 157, takes 
for an older *dapit, base dép-, dap- in Lat. daps, etc. (cf. Walde 
165 f.), may rather be from the base lep- ‘tear off’ in Gk. λέπω 
‘peel, strip off,’ λεπτός ‘thin, fine, delicate, weak,’ Lat. lepidus, 
etc. Compare, for meaning, ChSl. lupit:, Lith. liapt: ‘schalen, 
abziehen,’ Skt. lumpdti ‘zerbricht’: Gk. λύπη ‘pain, grief,’ λύπέω 
‘pain, grieve, distress.’ The a of Lat. lapit sustains the same 
relation to the ε of Gk. λέπω as the a of lapis to the ε of λέπας. 

25. For Lat. medulla ‘marrow, pith’ we may assume the pri- 
mary meaning ‘softness, soft part,’ and compare Skt. mddhu, 
Ch8l. medti ‘Honig, Met,’ OE. medu ‘mead,’ Gk. μέθν ‘wine, 
strong drink.’ 

26. Lat. melior ‘better’ has been referred to a base mel- ‘large, 
strong, etc.’ in Gk. μάλα ‘very,’ μᾶλλον ‘more,’ etc. (cf. Walde 
876). But as melior is the comparative of bonus, we should 
expect it to have a somewhat similar meaning, not one entirely 
different. Now bonus is from the same root as Lat. beare ‘make 
happy, gladden, refresh,’ bellus ‘charming, lovely, agreeable, 
pleasant, friendly,’ Skt. diévas ‘Verehrung,’ duvasydt: ‘ehrt, 
verehrt, erkennt an, belohnt.’ Hence melior would naturally 
mean ‘milder, more friendly, more gracious, more beneficent’ or 
the like. We may therefore compare Lith. maléné ‘Gnade,’ 
malonis ‘gnadig,’ maloningas ‘huldvoll,’ Lesb. μέλλεχος, Cret. 
“ηλίχιος, Ion. μείλιχος ‘mild, soft, gentle, kind,’ μειλίχιος ‘mild, 
gentle, soothing.’ These are supposed to come from a base mé(1)-, 
also in ChSl. mili ‘mildtatig,’ Lith. mylas ‘lieb,’ méilé ‘Liebe,’ 
myliu ‘liebe.’ So optimus (*opitumus) from ops in the sense ‘aid, 
help, assistance’ (not ‘Macht, Falle’ as given by Walde 8. v.), 
meant ‘most helpful, most beneficent’ (cf. Sommer IF’. XI, 213), 


GREEK AND LaTIN ETYMOLOGIES 83 


and thus completes and harmonizes the series. Compare the 
similar development in Goth. gairrus ‘sanftmatig’: Lith. géras 
‘gut’ (Hirt PBB. 23, 351 f£.); Goth. wopeis ‘lieblich,’ ON. gére 
‘freundlicher: besser, trefflicher.’ 

27. Lat. mora ‘delay, hindrance; pause; space of time,’ moror 
‘delay, tarry, linger; retard, detain, hinder’ have been referred to 
the base (s)mer- in Skt. smdrati ‘erinnert sich,’ Lat. memor, etc. 
Against this connection the same objection may be raised as in 
the case of Gk. μένω: μέμονα (cf. πο. 10). For mora I assume the 
primary meaning ‘a holding, checking,’ and compare the base 
mer- ‘crush, press; hold, seize, etc.’ This meaning also better 
explains the various significations in Ir. maratm ‘bleibe, lebe,’ 
mall ‘hebes, tardus, morans,’ Welsh mall ‘ putris, corruptus, malus; 
(item) stolidus, insip[id]us, insulsus,’ i.e. ‘crushed, crumbling; 
stupefied; weak.” 

Compare Skt. mrndti ‘zermalmt, zerstort,’ Gk. μαραίνω ‘wear 
out, weaken; pass. waste away, decay;’ Skt. mdrdati ‘reibt, zer- 
drtckt, reibt auf,’ Gk. μόρδει" κωλύει, βλάπτει; MHG. zermiirsen 
‘zerdricken,’ OE. d-mierran ‘disable, injure, corrupt, destroy; 
hinder,’ mierran ‘hinder, be a stumbling-block to; squander, 
waste,’ Goth. marzjan ‘argern, Anstoss geben,’ OHG. merren ‘auf- 
halten, behindern; stéren,’ MLG. merren, marren ‘aufhalten, 
hindern; sich aufhalten, zogern, siumen,’ etc. (cf. no. 8 and 
Mod. Lang. Notes XXI, 40f.). 

28. Lat. olor ‘swan’ etc. (cf. Walde s. v.) probably received 
the name from the color. Compare OHG. elo ‘gelb,’ Lat. al-bus, 
etc. So also the following: Lat. albus, etc.: OHG. albiz, elbiz 
‘Schwan,’ etc.— Av. xvan- ‘shine’: OHG., OE. swan ‘swan’ (cf. 
Uhlenbeck Ai. Wtb. 8. v. sudnati).—Skt. gdcati ‘leuchtet, glanzt,’ 
gucis ‘leuchtend, glanzend, blank’: Gk. κύκνος ‘swan’ (cf. author, 
A.J.P. XXI, 179).—OHG. gelph ‘von hellglanzender Farbe, 
glinzend’: Lith. gulbé, Pruss. gulbis ‘swan’ (cf. author, Color- 
Names 28). 

29. Lat. rancens, rancidus ‘stinking, rancid,’ rancor ‘a stink- 
ing smell or flavor, rankness, rancidity; an old grudge, rancor’ 
seem to be repeated in MLG. wrank, wrange ‘sauer, herbe, bitter, 
strenge, MDu. wranc, Du. wrang, herbe, bitter.’ These, how- 


84 Franois A. Woop 


ever, are the same as OSw. vranger, ON. vrangr ‘gebogen; ver- 
kehrt, falsch,’ OE. wrang ‘injustice, wrong,’ MLG. wrank ‘Ringen, 
z. B. der Hande; Ringen, Kampf, Streit, Groll (cf. Lat. rancor ‘ old 
grudge’); Braéune der Schweine,’ and are related to the strong verb 
OK. wringan ‘wring, press out,’ OS. wringan ‘drehen,’ OHG. 
ringan ‘drickend winden, ringen; streiten,’etc. The Germ. words 
are usually referred to a pre-germ. base *ure(n)gh- on account of 
MHG. erwergen ‘erwirgen,’ Lith. verzit ‘schnire, enge ein, 
presse.’ But ON. τό, OSw. vra, NGutn. rdng ‘Winkel, Ecke’ 
point to a base *urenk- (cf. Lidén Ein baltisch-slav. Anlautge- 
setz 10), to which may also belong germ. wringan (or this may 
represent both bases) and Lat. rancens. 

On the development of meaning in the above compare OE. 
wripan ‘twist; bind,’ wrap ‘angry, fierce, hostile; harsh (to 
taste); grievous, terrible,’ MLG. wret ‘gedreht, krumm; wild, 
grimmig; heftig, strenge; herbe, sauer, bitter, widrig (vom 
Geschmack ).’ 

30. Lat. sarcio ‘patch, mend, repair,’ sarcina ‘bundle, pack- 
age, load,’ which evidently go back to the signification ‘draw 
together, bind,’ are connected by Meringer with Gk. épxos ‘Gehege, 
Schutz; Netz’ (cf. TF. XVII, 157 ff.; and for other words given 
by M. see Walde, Ht. Witb. 545). This gives us a base serk-, which 
we may derive from ser- in Lat. sero ‘join or bind together, plait, 
interweave, connect,’ Gk. εἴρω ‘join together in rows,’ etc. Simi- 
larly from sner- comes snerk- in OHG. snerhan ‘binden, kntpfen, 
schlingen,’ ON. snara ‘drehen, wenden, schlingen’ (: ON. sner- 
kia ‘zusammenziehen, runzeln;’ Dan. snerpe ‘zusammenziehen, 
-schntren,’ OHG. snerfan ‘zusammenziehen’ ). 

31. For Lat. sarddre ‘intelligere’ we may assume the primary 
meaning ‘seize, grasp.’ This implies a *sarda- ‘seizing, tearing,’ 
which we may refer to sario ‘hoe, weed,’ from which come sarpuo, 
sarpo ‘cut, trim, prune,’ Gk. ἁρπάξω ‘tear, snatch, plunder; seize, 
grasp; grasp with the mind, apprehend’ (cf. no. 1, and for 
meaning no. 34). 

32. Lat. sevérus ‘stern, severe, harsh’ Walde s. v. derives from 
‘$#se ‘ohne’+ *vero-, *vérd- ‘Scheu’ zu vereor.” <A more natu- 
ral derivation would be *se + ON. verr ‘freundlich, ruhig, 


GREEK AND LaTIN ETYMOLOGIES 85 


angenehm,’ Goth. * (un) wérs ‘unwillig,’ unwérjan ‘unwillig sein,’ 
OHG. miti-wari ‘sanftmatig.’ These certainly contain the same 
root as OK. wer ‘agreement, treaty, promise, faith, fidelity, 
friendship,’ wer, OS., OHG. war ‘wahr,’ Ir. fir, Lat. vérus, ChSl. 
véra ‘Glaube,’ Av., OPers. var- ‘glauben.’ These I derive from 
a base uere- in Gk. ῥήττρα ‘saying, speech; agreement, bargain, 
covenant’ (Cypr. ¢p7-Ta ‘Vertrag,’ ερητάομαι ‘bestimme’), ῥητός 
‘spoken, named, specified, covenanted, agreed on,’ Skt. vratd-m 
‘Wille, Gebot, Gesetz; Gelnbde, etc.,’ Gk. εἴρω ‘say, speak, tell,’ 
Lat. verbum, etc. (cf. Pub. of the Mod. Lang. Assoc. XIV, 329). 

88. Lat. tempus ‘temple (of the head)’ is easily derivable 
from temp- ‘stretch,’ not as ‘Gespanntes’ as given by Waldes. v., 
but as ‘thinness, thin place.’ This is a common designation of 
the temple. Compare the following: OE. bynne ‘thin’: bunwang 
‘temple,’ OHG. dun-wengi ‘Schlafe,’ MLG. dunninge ‘Schlafe.’— 
ON. slapa ‘schlaff herabhangen,’ sldpr ‘schlaffer Mensch,’ 
Germ *slépaz ‘eingefallen’: OHG. slaf ‘Schlafe;’ Lith. slépsna 
‘Dainnung, Weichen,’ Gk. λαπάρα ‘flank’: λαπαρός ‘slack, 
loose,’ Lith. stlpnas ‘schwach, kraftlos. —MHG. smelhe ‘schmal, 
gering, Lett. smalks ‘fein, dtinn,’ Lith. smulkus ‘fein, klein’: 
smilkinys ‘Schlafe..—Gk. «e/pw ‘shear, cut; consume,’ Russ. 
korny ‘klein von Wuchs,’ Lett. karns ‘nttchtern, hungrig, schlank, 
leer,’ Gk. κορσόω ‘shear’: κόρση ‘temple’ (cf. Color-Names 75).— 
To these we may add Lith. tempit ‘spanne durch Ziehen, dehne 
aus,’ Lat. tempus ‘time,’ primarily ‘stretch, span, extent, space’: 
tempus ‘temple.’ To refer tempus ‘temple’ to a root *tem-p- 
‘schlagen, klopfen’ is futile as long as a root *tem-p- with that 
meaning cannot be found, and as long as “tempus ‘Schlafe’ als 
‘klopfendes, schlagendes’”’ is not paralleled. 

84. Lat. tongére ‘nosse, scire,’ tongitio ‘notio,’ Osc. tanginum 
‘sententiam,’ Goth. bagkjan ‘denken,’ ON. Jekkia ‘gewahr wer- 
den, erkennen,’ etc., are from a base tong-, which no doubt meant. 
‘take, grasp,’ whence ‘grasp, begreifen, comprehendere, verneh- 
men.’ This is probably the same as fe(n)g- in Lat, tango ‘touch, 
beat, handle,’ tagax ‘thievish,’ integer ‘untouched,’ Gk. τεταγών 
‘taking hold of,’ OE. Jaccian ‘pat, flap,’ ON. Jraka ‘strike, smite; 
afflict,’ biakadr ‘worn, exhausted.’ 


86 Francis A, Woop 


With Ir. fowg ‘angenehm,’ which is compared with tango, Fick 
Wid.‘ II, 121, compare ON. béknask ‘gefallen, behagen,’ bekkr 
‘angenehm, gefallig,’ bekkia ‘angenehm machen,’ etc., which, 
however, may have -k(k-) from pre-Germ. -kn-, and may belong 
to a synonymous base fek- in ON. begr ‘gefallig, willkommen,’ 
pegd ‘Annehmlichkeit, Gunst,’ biggia ‘annehmen, empfangen,’ 
OE. Picgan ‘take, receive, accept,’ Gk. τέκειν ‘beget, bear.’ 

That tongeo meant primarily ‘take, grasp’ is further proved 
by Goth. bagks ‘Dank,’ OE. anc ‘thought; favor, grace; pleas- 
ure, satisfaction, delight; thanks,’ etc. The various meanings 
here cannot be explained as diverging from ‘thought.’ But they 
can be derived from ‘take, grasp.’ Thus we have pre-Germ. 
*tongo-s ‘a taking, grasping: anything grasped, concept, thought; 
anything taken or acceptable, favor, grace, pleasure, gratefulness, 
thanks.’ 

On the developed meanings in fe(n)g-, tek- compare the follow- 
ing: Lat. capio, concipro, percipio.—OE. on-gietan ‘seize, assail : 
perceive, feel, see, hear, hear of, be told of, understand, know, 
recognize, be-gietan ‘get, obtain, acquire, find; beget, conceive 
(child)..—OHG, striunen ‘gewinnen, erwerben,’ OE. strienan 
‘acquire; beget..—NHG. nehmen, annehmen, vernehmen.— TIE. 
*gené ‘get, grasp’: gené- ‘get, beget, conceive’ in Lat. gigno, 
Gk. γίγνομαι, Skt. pdnati ‘erzeugt,’ etc.: gené- ‘get, grasp, per- 
ceive, know’ in Skt. janati, Gk. γιγνώσκω, Lat. ndsco, etc. —Gk. 
λαμβάνω ‘take, grasp, seize; grasp, understand, hold, believe; 
conceive (child),’ Skt. ldbhaté, lambhaté ‘fasst, ergreift, erlangt; 
erfahrt. nimmt wahr, (with dpa) erfasst, erlangt; nimmt wabhr, 
erkennt, erfahrt, weiss.’ 

So we might add examples indefinitely. But these are enough 
to prove that fe(n)g- ‘touch, take’ and fong- ‘perceive’ are in all 
probability related. Practically the same explanation was given 
by me in Mod. Lang. Notes XIV, 259f. (May, 1899), but it 
seems not to have been adopted or even known. 


UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 


NOTES ON THE MONUMENTUM ANCYRANUM 


In the Res gestae divi Augusti, published in 1888, Theodor Momm- 
sen gave to the world what seemed at the time to be almost a definitive 
edition of the Monumentum Ancyranum. There soon appeared, how- 
ever, a number of articles, notably those of Seeck (Wochenschr. f. klass. 
Phil., November 19, 1884), Johannes Schmidt (Philologus, 1885, 1886, 
1887), and Wolfflin (Sitzungsber. ἃ. Akad. d. Wissensch. zu Minchen, 
1886), which showed that scholars were not entirely satisfied with the 
text established by Mommsen. It is with several of the doubtful pas- 
sages that the principal part of this article will deal. 

Mommeen’s restoration of the Latin, II. 18-20, and of the correspond- 
ing Greek, is as follows: 

[Privat]lim etiam et municipatim universi 
[cives sacrificaverunt sempe]r apud omnia pulvinaria pro vale 
[tudine mea.] 

καὶ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ καὶ | κατὰ πόλεις σύμπαντες οἱ πολεῖται ὁμοθυμαδὸν] συνεχῶς ἔθυσαν 

ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐμῆς σωτηρίας. 


The Greek is almost perfectly preserved in this passage, but Momm- 
sen himself does not feel sure of the exact wording of the Latin. He 
considers ὁμοθυμαδόν as in some way corresponding to apud omnia pul- 
vinaria, a position which seems to me quite indefensible. It is much 
more likely that the translator merely disregarded the Latin, apud omnia 
pulvinaria, just as in the Appendix no attempt is made to reproduce 
[pulvina}r ad circum maximum (VI. 88, 34). It is true that in the body 
of the inscription, IV. 4, pulvinar ad circum maximum is translated by 
ναὸν xpos τῷ μεγάλῳ ἱπποδρόμῳ; but if the author of the Greek saw no 
objection to the translation of pulvinar by vads in that passage, why 
should he have considered it necessary in II. 19 to render apud omnia 
pulvinaria by the totally inadequate ὁμοθυμαδόνῖ Wolfflin, loc. cit., 
p. 266, thinks that συνεχῶς stands for apud omnia pulvinaria, but 
συνεχῶς comes little, if any, closer than ὁμοθυμαδόν to a correct reproduc- 
tion of the Latin words. I am convinced that the author of the Greek 
. considered σύμπαντες hardly strong enough to represent universi, and so 
added ὁμοθυμαδόν, which is etymologically a rough equivalent to the 
Latin word. 

If Mommeen is correct, and I think he is, in supposing that the word 
ending in r is represented by συνεχῶς, not by ὁμοθυμαδόν, then neither the 

87 


88 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 

unanimiter of Wolfflin (p. 266) nor the concorditer of Bormann and 
Schmidt (Philologus, 1887, p. 80) can be right. Mommsen, Additamenta 
to p. 43, rejects frequenter, suggested by Bormann, as exceeding the 
space, though preferable in other respects to semper, which he adopts in 
the text. Certainly a better equivalent for συνεχῶς than either frequenter 
or semper is continenter. Of course the length of continenter lays it 
open to the objection offered to frequenter, but a careful examination of 
the facsimile has convinced me that there is ample room for fifty-seven 
letters in the line, five more than Mommsen allows. To save the space 
of one letter, it might be desirable to accept supplicaverunt, preferred by 
Wolfflin to sacrificaverunt on the ground that supplicare is regularly 
used with apud omnia pulvinaria. The Greek ἔθυσαν, however, inclines 
me to keep sacrificaverunt. 

I should restore the Latin thus: 

(Privat]im etiam et municipatim universi 
[cives sacrificaverunt continente]r apud omnia pulvinaria pro vale 
[tudine mea.] 

The vexed passage, IIT. 40-43, is thus restored by Mommsen: 

(Inde ab eo anno qjuo Cn. et P. Lentuli c[onsjules fuerunt eum d[e]ficerent 
(vecti]g(alia, tum] centum millibus h[omi]num tu[m pluribus i{nlJato fru- 
{mento vel ad njumma{rio]s t{ributus ex agro] et pat{rimonio] m[e]jo 

[opem tuli.] 

The uncertainty of this restoration, with its doubtful Latin and con- 
fused sense, is enhanced by a comparison with the clear and uninvolved 
Greek, here again almost perfectly preserved: 

[Απ᾿ ἐἸκείνου r[0]0 ἐνιαυτοῦ, ἐφ᾽ οὗ Ναῖος καὶ Πόπλιος 
[Δ]έντλοι ὕπατοι ἐγένοντο, ὅτε ὑπέλειπον αἱ δη- 

[μό]σιαι πρόσοδοι, ἄλλοτε μὲν δέκα μυρίασιν ἄλ- 

[Aore] δὲ καὶ πλείοσιν σειτικὰς καὶ ἀργυρικὰς συντάξεις 
ἐκ τῆς ἐμῆς ὑπάρξεως ἔδωκα. 

Mommsen himself is dissatisfied with the result of his efforts to 
restore the exact words of Augustus, but his understanding of the Emper- 
or’s meaning seems to me absolutely correct. Wolfflin and Schmidt, 
however, give an entirely different interpretation to the passage. WaAlf- 
flin (pp. 259, 260) reads: 

tum pluribus, inlato fru- 
mento atque nummariis tesseris divisis ex patrimonio meo 
opem tuli. 
Schmidt, substituting multo for inlato,' reads: 
tum pluribus multo, fru- 
mentarias et nummarias tesseras ex aere et patrimonio meo 
dedi. 

1Though Mommeen has i[nlJato, asserting that part of the i and a can be made 

out, everything before -fo is very uncertain. 


ΝΟΤΕΞ AND DISCUSSIONS 89 


Both rely on Suetonius Aug. 41, frumentum quoque in annonae difficul- 
tatibus saepe levissimo, interdum nullo pretio, viritim admensus est 
tesserasque nummarias duplicavit, where Suetonius is obviously speak- 
ing of benefactions to the city populace, while Augustus, in the passage 
from the Res gestae, is just as certainly referring to his treatment of 
provincials. 

I should try to find the very words of Augustus by translating the 
Greek as literally as possible. Accepting with some hesitation Schmidt’s 
multo, Mommsen’s archaic masculine tributus, and his ex agro et patri- 
monto meo, I should read: 

{Inde ab eo anno q]uo Cn. et P. Lentuli c[onsjules fuerunt, cum d[e]ficerent 
[vectilg[alia tum] centum millibus h{omiJoum, tu({m pljuribus [mul]to, fru- 
[mentarios et njummafriojs t{ributus ex agro] et pat{rimonio] m[ejo 

[dedi.] 

Mommeen’s restoration of the Latin, IV. 19, 20, and of the correspond- 
ing Greek is as follows: 

Con{s]ul septimum viam Flaminiam a[b urbe] Ari{minum feci et pontes] 
omnes praeter Mulvium et Minucium. 
[(‘T]ra[ros ἕ-] 
βδίο,μον ὁδὸν Φλαμινίαν ἀπὸ] Ῥώμης [᾿Αρίμινο»] 
γ[εφ]ύρας τε τὰς ἐν αὐτῇ πάσας ἕξω δνεῖν τῶν μὴ 
ἐπί ι]δεομένων ex lioxevis ἐπόησα. 

The restoration of the Greek seems certain, but two objections have 
been offered to the Latin version, the failure to provide for the ἐν αὐτῇ of 
the Greek, and the insertion of fect in a chapter entirely devoted to restora- 
tions and repairs. The Via Flaminia, moreover, had been constructed 
about two centuries before. | 

The words fect et Wolfflin (p. 273) rejects for et in ea, and he thinks 
that refect must be supplied in thought from the preceding sentence. 
The Greek ἐπόησα he would strike out as merely a repetition of the last 
word in the preceding chapter, due to the carelessness of the stonecutter. 

refeci also has been suggested, and the author of the Appendix, VI. 
87, 88, says “refecit .... [viJam Flamin[iam];” but there is hardly 
sufficient space for the additional letters, and the Greek translation of 
reficere is regularly ἐπισκενάζειν. Accepting the first of Wolfflin’s emenda- 
tions, I should restore the passage thus: 

Con(sjul septimum viam Flaminiam a[b urbe] Ari[minum et in ea pontes] 

omnes praeter Mulvium et Minucium [munivt]. 


Whether the Ancyran stonecutter, or the copyist whose work he followed, 
was at fault here, the omission of munivt after Mulvium et Minuctum 
was an error easy to make, and of a kind only too common, as every 
student of Greek and Latin manuscripts is well aware. To strengthen 
the hypothesis that Augustus wrote munivi, I may cite the inscription 


90 Nores AND Discussions 


relating in part to this very undertaking of Augustus, CIL. XI. 365, 
via Flaminjia [et reliquei|s celeberrimeis Italiae vicis . . . . [mu]}niteis, 
and Suetonius Aug. 80, desumpta sibi Flaminia via Arimino tenus 
munienda. I find no exact parallel for pontes munivi, but Tacitus Ann. 
i. 56, has ad munitiones viarum et fluminum. The writer of the Greek 
version, unable to make an accurate translation of the technical munivi, 
contented himself with the unsatisfactory ἐπόησα. 

The substitution of ἔξω δνεῖν τῶν μὴ ἐπιδεομένων ἐπισκεύης for praeter 
Mulvium οἱ Minucium, though it has no immediate bearing on the 
textual difficulty discussed above, deserves some comment. It should be 
borne in mind that the Greek translation was prepared for the benefit of 
distant provincials, not one of whom had probably ever heard of the 
Mulvian and Minucian bridges, and to whom the bald statement that 
Augustus had repaired all the bridges on the Via Flaminia, except those 
two, might be somewhat mystifying. Consequently the translator 
omitted the names of the bridges and added, τῶν μὴ ἐπιδεομένων ἐπισκευῆς, 
information quite unnecessary had it been intended for the citizens at 
home. 

Similar editing for the benefit of the provincials may be seen else- 
where, 6. g., II. 29, [tuxta ajedes Honoris et Virtutis, omitted entirely 
in the Greek; lud[os sjaeclare]s, rendered by [ras θ]άς [Sha ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν 
γεινομένας, ὀνομαζομένας σ[αιἸκλάρεις; and VI. 17, corona civica, rendered 
by ὁ δρύινος στέφανος ὁ διδόμενος ἐπὶ curnpia τῶν πολειτῶν. Kaibel’s view 
that the Greek rendering οὗ lud[os sjaecllare|s and corona civica was 
taken bodily from a glossary (Mommsen’s Res gestae, 199, 200) may 
easily be reconciled with my theory of explanatory editing. 

In connection with Quintilian, ix. 4. 72 f., it is interesting to observe 
that Augustus begins chap. 27 (v. 24, 25) with two spondaic verses of 
dactylic hexameter: 

Aegyptum imperio populi Romani adieci. 

Armeniam maiorem interfecto rege eius 

Artaxe, etc. 
Of course, Augustus cannot be held responsible for the wording of the 
title, but we find there: 

Rerum gestarum divi Augusti quibus orbem 

terrarum imperio populi Romani, etc.; 
and the very first line of the inscription has, 

exerci- 

tum privato consilio et privata impensa. 

Throughout the inscription moreover, there are tantalizing bits of | 
verse, usually heavy with spondees. It is hard to believe that all are 


accidental). 
Caries HogEInG 
UNIVERSITY OF RocHESTER 


Notes AND Discussions 91 


NOTES TO HOMER 

Odyssey xix. 308 f.: 

ἴστω νῦν Ζεὺς πρῶτα, θεῶν ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος, 

ἱστίη τ᾽ ᾽᾿Οδυσῆος ἀμύμονος, ἣν ἀφικάνω. 
Verse 303 has been printed with a comma after πρῶτα in all the different 
editions which I can find, thus separating θεῶν from πρῶτα, and joining 
it with ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος. These two verses are almost identical with 
xiv. 158 f., xvii. 155 f., and xx. 230 f. 


ἴστω νῦν Ζεὺς πρῶτα θεῶν, ξενίη τε τράπεζα, 

ἱστίη τ᾽ ᾽᾿Οδυσῆος ἀμύμονος, ἣν ἀφικάνω. 
In the passage in xiv there can be no doubt that θεῶν goes with πρῶτα, as 
there is no other possible construction. In xix. 308 the phrase feviy re 
τράπεζα has dropped out, and the metrical makeshift ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος 
has taken its place, without in any way changing the construction of the 
sentence, and the verse here should read 

ἔστω viv Ζεὺς πρῶτα θεῶν, ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος: 
A more cogent reason for joining θεῶν with πρῶτα is the fact that in 
Homer there is not a single passage where πρῶτα or any of its varied 
adverbial forms is used in an address of devotion, where θεῶν is not 
joined with it. The examples are iii. 418 f.: 

καρπαλίμως po, τέκνα φίλα, κρηήνατ᾽ ἐέλδωρ, 

ὄφρ᾽ ἦ τοι πρώτιστα θεῶν ἱλάσσομ᾽ ᾿Αθήνην, 
xiv. 158; xvii. 155; xx. 230: 

ἴστω viv Ζεὺς πρῶτα θεῶν, Levin τε τράπεζα, 
Iliad xvii. 568: 

ὡς φάτο, γήθησεν δὲ θεὰ γλαυκῶπις ᾿Αθήνη 

ὅττι ῥά ol πάμπρωτα θεῶν ἠρήσατο πάντων. 
Iliad xix. 258; here the verse is the same as xix. 308—the passage under 
consideration. There are no other examples of πρῶτα used in an address 
of devotion in Homer. Odyssey xx. 60 is a description in the words of 
the poet and not the words of devotion, and so does not come under 
this rule. I regard xiv. 158, coupled with the fact that Homer never 
omits θεῶν in an address of devotion when he uses any form of πρῶτα, as 
sufficient proof that the proper reading in xix. 808 is 

ἴστω νῦν Ζεὺς πρῶτα θεῶν, ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος. 
Odyssey xvi. 206 ff.: These verses are the core of the recognition scene 
between Odysseus and Telemachus. To vs. 206 Ameis-Hentze in the 
Anhang have this note: 


Dass in dieser Scene Telemach den Odysseus nicht an einem Zeichen 
erkennt, wie Eurykleia, Eumaios, Philoitios, Penelope, und Laertes, sondern 


92 ΝΟΥΕΞ AND DISCUSSIONS 


dass die Darstellung durch das Wort mit Widerlegung der von Telemach 
gefusserten Zweifel diese Wirkung tbt, davon liegt der Grund teils in dem 
innigen Verh&ltnis, welches psychologisch zwischen Vater und Sohn herrscht. 


The simplest explanation is that there was no sign which Odysseus could 
have used. The scar so well known to Eurycleia and Odysseus’ close 
associates could have made no impression on the baby, Telemachus. 
The age of Telemachus, when his father left for Troy, makes the remem- 
brance of any sign impossible; hence none could be used. The reason 
why Telemachus was so quick to admit evidence and was so ready to 
believe, while the others, and above all Penelope, were so hard to persuade, 
is because of their different sorrows in the absence of Odysseus. Tele- 
machus never mourned for his father from any longing for his compan- 
ionship, but he wanted the benefits that his return might bring him, 
Telemachus. The introduction of Telemachus tells the way he grieved 
for his father; i. 113 ff.: 

τὴν δὲ πολὺ πρῶτος ἴδε Τηλέμαχος θεοειδής" 

ἧστο γὰρ ἐν μνηστῆρσι φίλον τετιημένος ἦτορ, 

᾿ ὀσσόμενος πατέρ᾽ ἐσθλὸν ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ef ποθεν ἐλθὼν 

μνηστήρων τῶν μὲν σκέδασιν κατὰ δώματα θείη, 

τιμὴν δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἔχοι καὶ δώμασιν οἷσιν ἄνασσοι. 
- This is merely the longing inspired by personal advantage. In i. 215 f. 
he makes a coarse joke about his father: 

μήτηρ μέν τέ μέ φησι τοῦ ἔμμεναι, αὐτὰρ ἐγώ ye 

οὐκ οἶδ᾽ οὐ γάρ πώ τις ἐὸν γόνον αὐτὸς ἀνέγνω. 
In i. 234 ff. he regrets that his father had not died in Troy: 

τῷ κέν of τύμβον μὲν ἐποίησαν Παναχαιοὶ, 

ἠδέ κε καὶ ᾧ παιδὶ μέγα κλέος ἥρατ᾽ ὀπίσσω. 
Then near the end of a, when Penelope cannot endure to hear that song 
which reminds her of her loss, Telemachus harshly silences her with 
the cruel comfort, 354 f.: 

οὐ yap ᾽Οδυσσεὺς οἷος ἀπώλεσε νόστιμον ἦμαρ 

ἐν Τροίῃ, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι φῶτες ὅλοντο. 
Odysseus was to Telemachus a remote and vague being; he could have 
no personal affection for him. Telemachus desires his father’s return, so 
that the son may be rid of troubles and possess his inheritance. He longs 
not so much for the presence as for the power of Odysseus. Penelope 
yearns for Odysseus not for her own, but for his sake; her words xx. 79 ff. 
are typical of her unselfish devotion: 


ὡς ἔμ᾽ ἀιστώσειαν ᾽᾿Ολύμπια δώματ᾽ ἔχοντες, 
ἠέ μ᾽ ἐνπλόκομος βάλοι ἴΑρτεμις, ὄφρ᾽ ᾿Οδυσῆα 
ὀσσομένη καὶ γαῖαν ὕπο στυγερὴν ἀφικοίμην. 


Nores AND DISCUSSIONS 98 


Her desire and affection are so intense that she can hardly be convinced, 
and, like the disciples of Jesus, she “believed not for joy.” A striking 
parallel to this recognition scene in Homer is found in Sophocles’ Electra. 
Chrysothemis sees the offerings made at the grave of Agamemnon, and 
from these tokens reasons that Orestes is still alive, while the keenly 
interested Electra cannot be convinced until she sees the certain proof 
and sign, the signet-ring of her father. In 1222 Orestes says: 
τήνδε προσβλέψασά pov 
σφραγῖδα πατρὸς ἔκμαθ᾽ εἰ σαφῇ λέγω. 

It is not “das innige Verhaltnis, welches psychologisch zwischen Orestes 
und Chrysothemis herrscht,” that explains her readiness to be convinced, 
nor does its absence make Electra so slow to believe. So in Homer, 
Telemachus’ desire for his father’s return is a calm, selfish one which 
easily listens to evidence; while Penelope’s yearning is of that intense, 
personal sort which can scarcely be convinced, lest it be deceived in the 
end. The same reason applies to the others to whom a sign was given, 
though in a less degree. Penelope was the slowest to believe, because 
the personal presence of Odysseus meant the most to her. Telemachus 
was the easiest to convince, since he had never known his father and 
could feel no loss of personal companionship in his absence. 

Iliad xviii. 284 ff.: 

Πουλυδάμα, σὺ μὲν οὐκέτ᾽ ἐμοὶ φίλα ταῦτ᾽ ἀγορεύεις, 

ὃς κέλεαι κατὰ ἄστυ ἀλήμεναι αὗτις ἰόντας. 

7) ov πω κεκόρησθε ξελμένοι ἔνδοθι πύργων; 

πρὶν μὲν γὰρ Πριάμοιο πόλιν μέροπες ἄνθρωποι 

πάντες μυθέσκοντο πολύχρυσον πολύχαλκον᾽ 

νῦν δὲ δὴ ἐξαπόλωλε δόμων κειμήλια καλά, 

πολλὰ δὲ δὴ Φρυγίην καὶ Myoviny ἐρατεινὴν 

κτήματα περνάμεν᾽ ἵκει, ἔπει μέγας ὠδύσατο Ζεύς. 

νῦνδ᾽, ὅτε πέρ μοι ἔδωκε Κρόνου παὶς ἀγκυλομήτεω 

κῦδος ἀρέσθ᾽ ἐπὶ νηυσί, θαλάσσῃ τ᾽ ἔλσαι ᾿Αχαιούς, 

γήπιε, μηκέτι ταῦτα νοήματα airy’ ἐνὶ δήμῳ. 
These are the words of Hector in reply to Polydamas who, on the 
reappearance of Achilles, urges that the Trojans abandon the offensive 
and retire within the walls of Troy. The objections urged against this 
passage are summed up and approved by Leaf as follows: 

The five lines 288-92 are a confusing element in the speech, and seem to 
have no bearing whatever on the situation; they would certainly be better 
away, for if we omit them the connection of thought is quite clear, but as 
they stand, the loss of wealth would appear to be an excuse rather for the 
defensive than for the offensive attitude Hector is recommending. νῦν δὲ too 
is used in two quite different antitheses in 290 and 293, in the latter case hav- 
ing no connection whatever with what immediately precedes. 


94 Nores AND DISvuvUssIONS 


Is this a valid objection? The loss of wealth was due, Hector thinks, to 
the fact that they had remained within the walls, and did not take the 
offensive. Now, in spite of that loss, Polydamas advises to pursue again 
that policy which has proved so disastrous. What stronger reasons could 
Hector have brought against the advice of Polydamas than that the 
defensive policy has already lead toruin? viv & simply shows the sudden 
shift of anger and excitement. Hector intended to say: “Now, when 
Zeus has given me the chance to win glory and to crowd the Achaeans 
on the shore, you advise retreat within the walls.” Every hearer would 
have this conclusion in his mind from vs. 286: 


ὅς κέλεαι κατὰ ἄστυ ἀλήμεναι αὖτις ἰόντας " 


Hector omits the easily supplied conclusion, and instead gives his opinion 
of the advice and the adviser vyme. The reasoning and the language 
seem to me entirely in keeping with the occasion and the speaker. 

Iliad xxii: It is a common statement that Achilles occupies a more 
prominent place in book xxii than in any other, and that in this book 
alone are the other Greeks practically ignored. This statement is made 
by Leaf (Iliad II, p. 427): “It occupies a peculiar place in the Jitad, as 
no single Greek hero other than Achilles and Patroclus is as much 
as named from beginning to end.” Yet in xxi the other Greeks are even 
more ignored than in xxii. In that book the only reference to the presence 
or action of other Greeks is where it is said: ‘Achilles gave them [the 
captives] to his companions to lead to the hollow ships;” xxi.32. While 
there are at least two distinct references to other Greeks in xxii, e.g., 205 f.: 


ἄλλοισιν δ᾽ ἀνένευε καρήατι δῖος ᾿Αχιλλεύς, 
οὐδ᾽ ἔα ἱέμεναι ἐπὶ Ἕκτορι πικρὰ βέλεμνα 
μή τις κῦδος ἄροιτο βαλών, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος ἔλθοι. 


also 869 ff.: 
ἄλλοι δὲ περιδραμον υἷες ᾿Αχαιῶν, 
ot καὶ θηήσαντο puny καὶ εἶδος ἀγητὸν 
Ἕκτορος. κτλ. 


The action of the Greeks in xxi is confined exclusively to Achilles, and 
no other Greek is even named, except in a chance taunt aimed by Ares 
at Athena in 396. The silence regarding the rest of the Greeks is not 
peculiar to one book, but is as much a characteristic of xxi as it is of xxii. 
Iliad xxiii, 358 ff.: 
σήμηνε δὲ réppar’ ᾿Αχιλλεὺς 

τηλόθεν ἐν λείῳ πεδίῳ: παρὰ δὲ σκοπὸν εἷσεν 

ἀντίθεον Φοίνικα, ὀπάονα πατρὸς ἑοῖο, 

ὡς μεμνέῳτο δρόμου καὶ ἀληθείην ἀποείποι. 


Notes AND DISOUSSIONS 95 


The objections found against this passage are endorsed by Leaf in his 
note as follows: 

The appearance of Phoenix might be excused in so late an episode, if he 
were more than a dumb person and appeared again in the sequel. As it is, 
various critics have rejected the line, not without reason. Others, with more 
justification, have extended their condemnation to 359-61. The appointment 
of the σκοπός, Phoenix or not, is useless. If we read δρόμον with MSS, and 
understand merely that he is to “keep the running in mind” and see fair play, 
he evidently ought to appear in the sequel when a question of fairness is 
actually raised (566 ff.), but is referred, not to a σκοπός, but to the ordeal of an 
oath. If with Ar. we read δρόμους, and understand that he is merely to count 
the laps, we have the difficulty that there seems to be only one lap. Either 
way the lines seem indefensible. 

The entire description of the race makes it certain that the outer turn of 
the course was far from the spectators—so far that the τέρμα could 
scarcely be seen, if indeed it could be seen. The temptation would have 
come to every driver to shorten his course by turning back before he had 
rounded the τέὠμα. To watch that each driver make the full circuit a 
σκοπός was absolutely necessary, and he must be placed near the outer 
goal, or, as Homer puts it, rapa δὲ σκοπόν. This is the very task assigned 
to Phoenix. The reason he was not called in to settle the subsequent 
dispute is because the trouble did not concern the rounding of the outer 
point of the course, so that the disputed point was not for him to decide. 
Phoenix had the same task which the second umpire has in the American 
game of baseball, as this umpire must watch whether all the runners go 
the full course and do not run in too close, “cut the base.” The trickery, 
the occasion for the subsequent dispute, shows that without such a σκοπός 
the outer goal would certainly have been “cut.” Such an umpire was 
necessary in the chariot race, in an open field, where there was no fence 
or artificial means to force the driver to make the entire circuit. The 
task of umpire should belong to a veteran; it could hardly fall to Nestor, 
as he had a son in the race; so Phoenix, the friend of Achilles, was just 
the impartial umpire needed. If my interpretation is correct, then the 
reading of MSS is the right one, and the translation of δρόμον is not 
“running,” but “course”: “Achilles pointed out the ends of the course, 
far away in the smooth plain. By the turning-point he put as umpire 
the companion of his father, the noble Phoenix, who should observe the 
course and speak the truth openly.” What more necessary in this race 
than an umpire? Who better fitted than Phoenix? How could Homer 
describe it more clearly? The assumption that Phoenix should have 
settled, or spoken in, the dispute, 566 ff., involves the absurdity that he 
was in every part of the course all the time, or that he kept pace with the 
drivers. 


NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 


Joun A. Scort 


96 NorTres AND DISCUSSIONS 


TACITUS ANNALS i. 28. 1 


The Mediceus reads: noctem minacem et in scelus erupturam fors 
lenivit: nam luna clamorepena caelo visa languescere. For the corrupt 
clamorepena Lipsius proposed: claro repente, Weissenborn claro plena, 
Salinerius clariore plena. The conjecture of Lipsius has found most 
favor with the editors. But it presents the difficulty that, though the 
word-order is claro repente caelo visa languescere, it is necessary to 
the sense that repente be construed with visa languescere; whereas, 
by reason of its position between claro and caelo, it should be con- 
strued with claro, and refer to some sudden clearing or brightening 
of the sky rather than to the eclipse. That the objection is a serious 
one is admitted even by those who adopt the reading. The conjecture of 
Weissenborn, claro plena, has for plena the support of Cicero De rep. 
i, 15. 23: perturbari exercitum nostrum religione et metu, quod serena 
nocte subito candens et plena luna defecisset. But the alternating word- 
order of luna claro plena caelo is unusual, to say the least, even in 
Tacitean prose. Besides, this reading fails to account for the last two 
letters of clamore, a corruption which certainly did not grow out of claro 
alone. The third conjecture, clariore plena, seeks to avoid this objec- 
tion; but the difficulty of the alternating word-order holds here also, and, 
though the assumption upon which the conjecture was based, namely, 
that the evening was only “fairly clear,” is supported by the later con- 
text ortae nubes offecere visui, it is more likely that this idea would be 
expressed a little less vaguely than by clariore. 

A fourth reading may be suggested which harmonizes even more 
closely with the above passage from Cicero De republ., conforms more 
nearly to the reading of the Mediceus, and obviates the difficulty of the 
word-order. 

The conjecture plena, for the corrupt pena, is evidently correct, and 
the only portion necessary to be explained is clamore. I believe that what 
Tacitus originally wrote was claro ore. A haplography of:a common 
kind produced clarore. clamore is the result of a scribe’s attempt to 
produce a familiar Latin word out of the corruption. The passage will then 
read: nam lunaclaro ore plena visa languescere. Thesense is: “for the 
moon, which was shining brightly and at the full, seemed, ete.” This is 
precisely the sense of the words candens at plena luna in the passage from 
Cicero. languescere is already figurative, and one need not be surprised 
at the figurative use of ore in the same passage. One may cite, however, 
Hor. Sat. i. 8. 21: simul ac vaga luna decorum protulit os; cf. the similar 
use of voltu in Hor. Od. ii. 11.9: non semper idem floribus est honor | 
vernis, neque uno luna rubens nitet | voltu, and of facie in Plin. N. H. ii. 
6. 12, where, speaking of the moon, he says: et modo curvata in cornu 
facie, modo aequa portione divisa, modo sinuata in orbem. 

F. W. SHIPLEY 


WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 


NoTES AND DISCUSSIONS 97 


NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ALCINOUS’ Εἰσαγωγή 


ii, p. 168, Teubner: τίμιος μὲν δὴ ὁ θεωρητικὸς Bios, ἑπόμενος δὲ καὶ 
ἀναγκαῖος ὃ πρακτικός. We should probably read ἑπομένως δὲ καὶ ἀναγκαίως ; 
i. 6., the practical life is also honorable, but secondarily and as ἃ conditio 
sine qua non of higher things. 

Tbid.: ἃ κατὰ τὸν θεωρητικὸν βίον ὁρᾶται, μελετῆσαι cis ἀνθρώπων ἤθη. 
add τιθέναι. Cf. Rep. 500d: ἃ ἐκεῖ ὁρᾷ μελετῆσαι εἰς ἀνθρώπων ἤθη τιθέναι. 

x, p. 165: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ συμβέβηκέ τι αὐτῷ, οὔτε κακόν" οὐ γὰρ θέμις τοῦτο 
εἰπεῖν. οὔτε ἀγαθόν" κατὰ μετοχὴν γάρ τινος ἔσται οὗτος. For οὗτος read 
οὕτως, “on that supposition it will exist by participation,” which is 
impossible. 

x, pp. 165-66: ἐξ ὧν ἁπάντων ἀναφαίνεται καὶ τὸ ἀσώματον αὐτὸ εἶναι. Read 
αὑτὸν 850. θεὸν. 

Xxv, p. 178: ἔτι δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ οὐ φθείρεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας κακίας οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τῆς 
ἄλλου φθείροιτ᾽ ἄν. Insert, with or without change of οὐ, εἰ after ἔτι δὲ. 

xxix, p. 182: τὼ δὲ εἴδη αὐτῆς λογικαί, ai δὲ περὶ τὸ ἄλογον μέρος συνιστα- 
μέναι. For αἱ δὲ read ai τε. 

xxx, p. 184: οὔτε γὰρ ὁ μηδὲ γονέων ὑβριζομένων ὀργιζόμενος ἀπαθὴς dy τις 
εἴη, οὔτε ὁ ἐπὶ πᾶσι καὶ τοῖς τυχοῦσι μετριοπαθής. This is barely possible if 
we take ἀπαθής with strict reference to the Stoic doctrine of the desira- 
bility of ἀπάθεα. But it is more probable that after ἀπαθής the words 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀναίσθητος have fallen out. Cf. ἀναίσθητός τις, Ar. With. Nic. 1104 a, 24. 
Alcinous is following Aristotle in the context. 

xxxii, p. 185: ὅτι οὐ κρίσεις τὰ πάθη οὐδὲ δόξαι, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἀλόγων τῆς ψυχῆς 
μερῶν κινήσεις. ἐν γὰρ τῷ παθητικῷ τῆς ψυχῆς συνίσταται, καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερα ἔργα 
οὐδὲ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν. ἄκουσι γοῦν ἐν ἡμῖν ἐγγίγνεται πολλάκις καὶ ἀντιτείνουσιν - ἐσθ᾽ ὅτε 
δὲ καὶ γινώσκοντες ὅτι οὐ λυπηρὰ τὰ προσπεπτωκότα οὐδὲ ἡδέα οὐδὲ μὴν φοβερά, 
οὐδὲν ἦττον ἀγόμεθα ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν. Insert οὐ before (τὰ) ἡμέτερα ἔργα, and prob- 
ably omit οὐ before Avrnpa. The whole isa polemic against the Stoic 
reference of the passions to the intellect (judgment). The meaning is: 
the πάθη are not our acts (not the acts of our will and rational personality), 
nor yet in our power, and sometimes though we recognize with the intel- 
lect that things (affections, experiences) are (not) painful and not pleasur- 
able either, nor yet to be feared, our conduct is none the less influenced 
by them. The insertion of the first οὐ seems necessary. The omission of 
the second is only probable. Withdut it we have only one shift; namely, 
from things that move us in spite of our better knowledge that they 
are really painful and not pleasurable, to things that move us to shun 
them though judgment tells that they are not to be feared. Retaining od 
we have the double shift from things that we shun, though not painful, 
to things that we pursue though not pleasurable, and then back again to 
things that we shun though not terrible. 

Pact SHorey 


98 NorEes AND DISCUSSIONS 


ACCENT IN LATIN 


I should be glad to be permitted to express my gratitude to Professor 
F. F. Abbott for his service in drawing attention to the unsatisfactory 
state of the Latin accent problem at the present time and offering a fresh 
solution of the same, and while doing so to dissociate myself once more 
from “the German-English school” (as he calls it) which denies the 
existence of a pitch-accent in classical Latin. This rejection of ancient 
testimony simply because it does not square with modern deductions is 
80 common a vice in the scholarship of today that it deserves a sharper 
censure than Mr. Abbott has awarded. Two other examples of it may 
be cited here—the discrediting of the statement of Martianus Capella 
about Appius Claudius and the pronunciation of z (see Classical Review, 
1901, pp. 218 ff.), and the invention of a new name for the battle of Phar- 
salia (ibid., 1905, pp. 257 ff.). The vanity of the supposition that we, 
Americans, Englishmen, or Germans, know better how Latin was pro- 
nounced than Cicero and Varro, witnesses of intellectual competence at 
least equal to our own, is only matched by its fatuity. For if first-hand 
evidence of this order is not to be believed, the whole edifice of philo- 
logical researches tumbles to the ground. For years I have taught that 
the clear and direct witness of Roman writers, to the effect that on what 
they regarded as the accented syllables of words there was a distinct 
rise of pitch, was implicitly to to be accepted, and this irrespective of 
any difficulties which we might find in explaining other phenomena in 
the Latin language. I have never disguised from myself the number 
and importance of the facts in the pathology of unaccented vowels and 
syllables which, from the modern point of view, seemed to conflict with 
this witness. But I have been content to suspend judgment till a recon- 
ciliation could be found. I do not wish to dwell on any part of the 
evidence which Mr. Abbott has adduced to substantiate the pitch-accent. 
But there is one passage which he does not cite, of such singular eviden- 
tial value that I venture again to refer to it.’ It isin Vitruvius, Arch. 
v. 4, and it establishes at once two things that have been denied by the 
“German-English School”—a Latin circumflex and a musical Latin accent. 

Vox enim mutationibuscum flectitur, alias fit acuta, alias grauis duobusque 
modis mouetur e quibus unus effectus habet continuatos. alter distantes. 
continuata uox neque in finitionibus consistit neque in ullo loco efficitque 
terminationes non apparentes, interualla autem media apparentia uti sermone 
cum dicamus “sol,” “lux,” “flos,” “uox.” nunc enim nec unde incipit nec 
ubi desinit intellegitur nec quae ex acuta facta est grauts, ex graui acuta, 
apparet auribus. per distantiam autem econtrario. namque cum fiectitur 
in mutatione uox, statuit se in alicuius sonitus finitionem, deinde in alterius 
xt id ultrocitro crebre faciendo inconstans apparet sensibus, uti in cantion#- 

8, cum flectentes uocem uarietatem facimus modulationis. 


1Compare Classical Review, 1899, p. 71, a, note, and tbid., 1905, p. 364, a, note. 


NorTes AND DISCUSSIONS 99 


This passage is, so far as the theory goes, undoubtedly based upon a 
Greek treatise, the Harmonics of Aristoxenus: but that will not impair its 
witness upon facts, except to those who believe that Greek writings upon 
music made their readers deaf to Roman sounds. And it shows that in 
Roman conversation, or if you like, colloquial Latin (sermone), there was 
in monosyllables with a long vowel a gradual rise and fall of pitch, or 
double slide, like the Greek circumflex! in its character but unlike it in 
the circumstance that it was placed on all accented monosyllables con- 
taining a long vowel. 

Upon Mr. Abbott’s proposed solution of the perplexing problem it is 
difficult to pass judgment until it is further defined. We want to know 
what exactly is covered by the words which I have put in italics in the 
quotation of his statement: “In the late republic and the early empire the 
literary accent was mainly one of pitch and the vulgar accent essentially 
a matter of stress.”? First as regards the term “vulgar.” Is this distin- 
guished from “colloquial” as clearly as it should be? The distinction is 
important. In England (I cannot speak of America) our domestic ser- 
vants speak colloquial English with their masters and mistresses, but with 
one another they talk what we may call colloquial “vulgar” English.* 
Is it meant that Cicero, e. g., used the pitch-accent or that he used the 
stress-accent in conversation? Or did he sometimes use the one and 
sometimes the other? Then as to “mainly” and “essentially.” Do these 
words mean that on some syllables there was a pitch-accent, and on other 
syllables there was a stress-accent, or that some speakers used a pitch- 
accent and others a stress-accent, or that the same speaker sometimes 
used one and sometimes the other? On one point I am entirely with 
Mr. Abbott, viz., that the educated pronunciation of Latin, at least so 
far as quantity was concerned, was powerfully influenced by Greek. 

The ultimate resolution of our perplexities is, I fear, a long way off; 
but I think it will be helpful to suggest the lines upon which we should 
proceed and the factors of which it is imperative for us to take account. 
Firstly, the analogy from Greek must be utterly discarded. Greek (this 
is how it is argued) had a pitch-accent and does not show syncope: Latin 
does show syncope and therefore had no pitch-accent. Could anything 
be more futile? Secondly, we must remember that the existence of 
syncopated doublets of words proves nothing whatever as to the character 
of the “main” accent, as I will ask to be allowed to call it. When a word 
is compressed in rapid speaking, 6. g., when solidum becomes soldum,‘ a 


1 The same facts are given in a rule of later writers by Mr. Abbott, p. 446, who very 
fitly says that ‘‘it cannot have been borrowed from Greek writers on accent.”’ 

2p, 455. 

8The differences are sufficiently marked, but it is not worth while to detail them. 

41 take this example as one which it will take the ingenuity of Professor Exon 
(Hermathena, No. 32, pp. 117 ff.) to get round. 


100 Notes AND DISCUSSIONS 


“main” accent will protect the syllable on which tt falls as effectively if 
at be pitch as if tt be stress.' These doublets do, however, tell us some- 
thing about the syllables that lie outside the “main” accent. Their 
absence from Greek shows that the stress throughout these syllables was, 
roughly speaking, level: their presence in Latin shows that the stress 
over the corresponding syllables was not level. When a word in Greek 
was thus compressed, all such syllables suffered equally, the result was 
the original word on a smaller scale, and no doublet could arise. In 
Latin, however, they suffered unequally, the syllable of weakest force went 
to the wall and a doublet, that is a word differing sensibly from the 
original word, sprang into being. Hence when we see solidum syncopated 
to soldum, we can infer that the syllable ls was pronounced with less force 
or stress than the syllable dum. Lastly, and this is the cardinal point, 
in any theories that we put forward we must recognize that pitch and 
stress are two independent things, and, to put it in a nutshell, a word may 
have its “main” pitch-accent on one syllable and its “main” stress- 
accent on another. Like the worthy Mrs. Bouncer in the well-known 
comedy, our philologists have used their utmost ingenuity to prevent the 
pitch-accent and the stress-accent from appearing on the stage at once. 
Cox and Box—Pitch and Stress—must never meet. But till they do 
meet, there can be no ἀναγνώρισις, nor any discovery of their real relations. 

Far from me be the rashness of formulating a definite scheme of Latin 
accentuation; but I am prepared to incur the minor hazard of provisional 
prophecy. I will therefore forecast that when, if ever, the facts which 
bear upon this question are duly ascertained and co-ordinated, the out- 
come will be something like the following: The separate syllables of inde- 
pendent words in Latin had uniformity neither of pitch nor of stress. 
The syllable which received the greatest force might be the one which 
had the highest pitch or it might not. From the variation arose, especially 
in the earlier period, fluctuations and anomalies of quantity, as, for 
example, syllables which were neither short nor long in the strict sense 
and syllables with different quantity in different forms of the same word. 
Under Greek influences these variations were reduced until there was an 
approximation to a condition of nearly uniform stress. The preponderant 
stress (the “main” stress-accent) in the case of polysyllables tended in 
the times of which we know anything to move toward the end of the 
word, though it never passed beyond the second mora from the end, and 
thus to coincide with the main pitch-accent. It was not till after this 
movement was completed that the joint-accent lost its musical character 
and survived as a stress-accent alone. 

J. P. Postaate 


CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND 


1This was pointed out in the Classical Review, 1899, p. 71 ὃ 


Notes AND DISCUSSIONS 101 


COMMENT ON PROFESSOR POSTGATE’S NOTE 


If others share the conviction which Professor Postgate expresses in 
his communication, I have succeeded at least in calling attention to the 
inadequacy of our commonly accepted theories of the Latin accent and to 
the unscientific way in which the evidence has been treated. These were 
two of the main objects which I had in mind in writing the article in 
question. The space at my disposal will not allow me to comment upon 
Mr. Postgate’s interesting suggestions. I can only aim to make clearer 
in a few words my conception of “vulgar Latin” and the meaning which 
I would give to “mainly” and “essentially” in the sentence quoted by 
him. The sermo cotidianus, as I conceive it, ranged from the highly 
developed form of speech heard in conversation on serious subjects in 
literary circles at Rome to the Latin which the illiterate used in talking 
with one another. The varied forms which it took in the matter of vocab- 
ulary, pronunciation, idiomatic usage, and sentence-construction I have 
tried to show in an earlier number of this journal (II, pp. 43 ff.) in a con- 
crete case by comparing the diction and style of an Encolpios with those 
of a Dama and Seleucus. The one extreme of colloquial speech would 
closely approach literary Latin and, consequently, in it, according to my 
theory, the accent would be essentially musical, while at the other extreme 
the stress-element would be so much more marked that it could be con- 
sidered the main feature. 

Frank Frost ΑΒΒΟΤῚ 


AN EMENDATION OF AELIAN Περὶ Ζῴων VIII. 1. 5 


καὶ τελευτῶντες τῆς κεφαλῆς τὸ λοιπὸν σῶμα ἀφεῖλον - ὀδόντες δὲ ἐκείνῳ 
ἥρτηντο τῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀντιλαβῆς. 

The text will construe, but a neater and more probable reading than 
Hercher’s ἐκείνῳ (MSS ἐκείνη) is given by the easy substitution of the 
deictic ἐκεῖνοι for ἐκείνῳ. This is an Herodotean flosculus such as Aelian 
affects, modeled on Herod. 6. 91, 92: χεῖρες δὲ κεῖναι ἐμπεφυκυῖαι ἦσαν τοῖς ͵ 
ἐπισπαστῆρσι. If accepted, the conjecture supports the reading χεῖρες δὲ 
κεῖναι in Herodotus, in place of af δὲ χεῖρες ἐκεῖναι preferred by Stein. 

Pav SHorEy 


BOOK REVIEWS 


Die Makedonen, thre Sprache und thr Volkstum. Von ΟΥΤΟ 
HorrmMann. Gottingen: Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht, 1906. 
Pp. v+284. M. 8. 


Were the Macedonians Hellenic? This question which was first 
raised when Alexander I of Macedon presented himself as a competitor 
in the Olympic games (Herod. v. 22) has remained a fruitful subject of 
discussion down to the present day. Our historians generally answer in 
the affirmative, but among students of language there has been less 
unanimity of opinion. While the Hellenism of the Macedonians was 
long since asserted by Fick and in recent years has been warmly advo- 
cated by Hatzidakis, many have maintained a more skeptical attitude, 
like that of Kretschmer, who holds that the Macedonians were closely 
related to the Greeks, but still not strictly Greek. The question is, as 
admitted on all sides, really the linguistic one, Was the speech of the 
Macedonians a dialect of Greek? And the difficulty of answering this 
decisively lies in the meagerness of the material. It is a painful fact, 
but significant of the narrow horizon of linguistic interest among the 
Greeks, that of the speech which was still commonly used by the soldiers 
of Alexander the Great, nothing has been handed down to us, apart from 
the proper names, except some scattered glosses. However, this lack of 
interest in the Macedonian language furnishes no argument against its 
Hellenic character, for we should be no better off as regards many of the 
Greek dialects, if we depended upon any information furnished by Greek 
writers. It is from the inscriptions alone that we know many of these, 
and inscriptions in Macedonian are unfortunately lacking. 

In the work before us the author has made the most of all the avail- 
able material, including some few forms which have survived in the 
present Greek dialect of Macedonia, and subjected it to a critical and 
impartial examination. The chapter on the Macedonian vocabulary con- 
tains the first exhaustive study of the glosses which has been attempted 
since the early articles of Fick (1864 and 1874), and while many of the 
latter’s explanations have been retained as obviously correct, the author 
has contributed no small number of new combinations. His conclusion 
is (pp. 111 ff.) that the great majority of the words are Greek, and of a 
dialect form which is inconsistent with the assumption of borrowing 
either from the Attic κοινή or the Ionic of the coast cities.. They show 

102 


Boox REvIEWws 103 


certain peculiarities common to Thessalian, and if borrowed at all must 
have been borrowed from Thess‘lian at an early period. But the proper 
names are also Greek from the earliest times, hence (p. 231) there is no 
ground for believing that the vocabulary was borrowed. Macedonian 
was then a Greek dialect, and a survey of its characteristics (pp. 232 ff.) 
shows that it is to be regarded as a sister dialect of Thessalian 
(p. 253). 

Although I am far from convinced of the correctness of the author’s 
new interpretation (pp. 282 ff.) of the use of the medial in place of the 
Greek aspirates (e. g., ἀβρούρες ΞΞ ὀφρύες), which is the most marked 
peculiarity of Macedonian, and the one which has played the principal 
role in all recent discussions, yet it must be admitted that this diver- 
gence from all the recognized Greek dialects is not in itself sufficient to 
debar Macedonian from a place among them if the other evidence points 
in that direction. And on the whole I believe that Hoffmann’s general 
conclusion is the one which best accords with the combined evidence, and 
in all probability is actually the correct one. But to admit that Mace- 
donian is genetically a Greek dialect and related to Thessalian is not to 
deny that, owing to its detached history and the Thracian and Illyrian 
influence to which it was subjected, it is in a class by itself, and it might 
still be claimed that subjectively considered it was not a Greek dialect, 
that is, was not felt as such by the Greeks themselves. Apparently it 
was never appealed to as an argument for or against the Hellenism of the 
Macedonians, either by such an advocate of their Hellenism as Herodotus 
(v. 22), who elsewhere refers to the community of language among the 
Greeks (viii. 144), or by its opponent Demosthenes (Philipp. iii. 31 Φιλέν- 

ον «+ οὗ μόνον οὐχ Ἕλληνος ὄντος οὐδὲ προσήκοντος οὐδὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, 
ἀλλ οὐδὲ BapBdpov ....). Only in later times do we find any reference 
to community of language, as that in the speech of the Macedonian envoys 
at the council of the Aetolians in 200 8.0. (Livy xxxi.29: Aetolos, Acarna- 
nos, Macedonas, eiusdem linguae nomines), which may be based simply 
on their use of the Attic κοινή. That Macedonian was not understood, or 
at least not readily understood, by the Greeks, is apparent from the 
account of the trial of Philotas, who excused himself for not speaking in 
Macedonian on the ground that there were others besides Macedonians 
present, who he thought would understand him more easily if he used 
the same language which Alexander himself had just used (i. 6. Greek) 
for no other reason than to be generally understood (Q. Curtius vi. 9. 35). 
But the same must have been true of several of the Greek dialects. 
A speech as delivered in Thessalian, Elean, etc., in their earlier form, before 
they were tempered by κοινή influence, would not have been readily fol- 
lowed, we may be sure. 

C. Ὁ. Buck . 


104 Boox ReEvIEews 


Pour mieux connattre Homére. Par ΜΊΟΒΕΙ, Brkau. Pp. 
xiii+309. Paris: Hachette et cie. 1906. 


The views of such a veteran scholar as Bréal are well worthy to be 
read by philologists, even when he leaves the field in which he speaks 
with the fullest authority. He is stimulating and suggestive, though he 
is not always convincing. 

Bréal’s main thesis is that the Homeric poems are true works of art, 
and not the products of the untaught genius of the people; made with 
the help of the art of writing, composed neither by a single author nor 
by a crowd, but by an organized group of poets who were charged with 
the celebration of religious festivals in Asia Minor, in an age of culture 
and art, and in the midst of a people devoted to legends and poetry, in 
the time of the later Mermnads, early in the seventh century B.0., not 
far from the age of Thales, Hecataeus, Aleman, and Mimnermus. The 
last additions to the poems, our author believes to have been made at the 
beginning of the sixth century 8.0. He is unwilling to believe that the 
Iliad had endured two centuries of oral transmission before the age of 
Pisistratus. In this case it would show more repetitions, more mis- 
placed epithets, and more interpolations. Oral tradition is able to 
preserve the vague memory of some great event, but not an epic poem of 
thousands of verses. Popular poetry is brief, and is incapable of continua- 
tion. With the critics who cut off the finest parts of the Iliad, on the pre- 
text of restoring its primitive form, Bréal has no sympathy. The homo- 
geneity of the epic verse, by itself, would disprove the views of Lachmann. 
At recurring festivals, the poems were repeated and extended. The 
Iliad is a collective work, in the same sense as the cathedrals of the 
Middle Ages. In the sixth century 3.o., the old sanctuaries of Asia 
Minor, in fear before the growing power of Persia, sent their MSS of the 
Homeric poems to Athens, and these poems were at once appointed for 
recital at the Panathenaic festivals, having there a like place to that 
which they had had in the festivals of Asia Minor. The festivals in 
Lydia probably lasted for several days, and thus allowed and encouraged 
long recitations. This relation of epic poetry to religious celebrations is 
compared to that of Greek dramatic poetry to the worship of Dionysus, 
and the author does not forget the relation of lyric poetry to the great 
* national games of Greece. ) 

As he goes on in the exposition of his views, Bréal is quite disposed 
to believe the Homeric poets to have been Greek refugees at the Lydian 
court, and he attributes the prominence given by the poet to the notion 
of the fatherland (πατρίς) to the longing for their home felt by wandering 
exiles. The exalted notions of glory which were held by the Homeric 
heroes, on the other hand, our author ascribes to the enthusiasm felt and 
inspired by the great multitudes who were present at the Lydian games» 
rather than to the fame which might arise from achievements in war. 


Boox ReEvisews 105 


For his views, our author presents few direct arguments, but he 
takes pains to remove archaeological objections, by urging that the poet 
was not depicting the life which was familiar to himself and his hearers, 
but was an archaeologist. The poets agreed to say nothing of the art 
of writing, or of cavalry, of sculpture and painting, of money, etc. The 
poet had never seen a chariot of war, but works of oriental art had given 
to him the impression that in old times warriors had fought on chariots. 
Nausicaa, going to the river to lave the family linen, was as artificial 
as any French princess of two or three centuries ago, playing at Arcadian 
life. To prove the poet’s truthful delineation of customs from the monu- 
ments is a vicious circle in argumentation: the poet derived his notions 
of the earlier period from these monuments, or from others like them— 
according to M. Bréal. 

Almost in the same month in which appeared the book before us, Mr. 
Andrew Lang published his work on Homer and His Age, in which one 
of the longest and most fascinating chapters is an argument to prove that 
Homer was not an archaeologist, and in this the reviewer agrees heartily 
with Mr. Lang. 

Much of the first part of M. Bréal’s book seems to have been 
published previously, though not in a form easily accessible to many 
American readers. In his collection of these papers, the author does not 
seem to have observed that by his view that the Homeric poems were 
early reduced to writing, though perhaps only in a single copy, he 
removes all force from his argument for the late date of composition, 
that several centuries of oral transmission would have wrought havoc in 
the poems. We need to assume no oral tradition, according to him. 
With the evidence before us, however, the view that the Homeric poems 
were composed in order to be sung at the court of Alyattes and Croesus, 
seems extremely improbable. 

The latter and larger half of the volume before us is devoted to a 
Homeric Lexilogus. The title reminds every reader of the work of 
Buttmann, of which M. Bréal speaks in high praise. The author, indeed, 
tells us of the satisfaction with which he learned that Buttmann was 
descended from a M. Boudemont. But this Lexilogus differs widely from 
its predecessor. Buttmann examined closely the Homeric usage, while 
Bréal has comparatively little to say of this. Believing, as he does, that 
the Homeric poems were composed in the seventh century 3B.o., why 
should he believe the Homeric usage to be very primitive? Thus, for 
example, he believes the Homeric ἥρως to be as far from its original mean- 
ing as the modern English lord is removed from the original hldford or 
“loaf-keeper.” ows, according to Bréal, originally meant ancestor ; and 
ἦριον or sepulcher, was strictly ἡρώιον (ἡρῷον), or shrine of an ancestor. 
The Boeotian (Pindaric?) ἡρόιον is set as a link between ἡρῷον and ἥριον. 
Clearly such an etymology is not based at all on epic usage. The same 


106 | Book REVyEws 


may be said of many others, here set forth. Is νίκη actually derived from 
ἐνεῖκαι (Attic ἐνέγκαι) bear, and is it that which is carried off? And is 
ἀοσσητήρ only another way of pronouncing αὐξητής, and close of kin to 
the Latin auziliator? Really, these etymologies hardly help the reader 
pour mieux connattre Homére ; but the book contains many learned and 
acute observations. About a dozen clear instances of oscitancy might be 
noted, but no one would urge these against Mr. Bréal’s scholarship. 


T. Ὁ. Seymour 
YaLE UNIVERSITY 


Begriff der Tragddie nach Artstoteles. Von F. Knoxe. Berlin: 
Weidmann, 19086. Pp. 83. M. 2. 


Like the work of Knoke’s great predecessor, Bernays, this fine essay, 
so scientific in its method, is not the result of disinterested examination 
of the results of others. The intuitive flash came first. Let us suppose 
the author to have been meditating upon the peculiar concluding chorus 
of a Sophoclean play, or upon that calming of feeling which the Greeks 
desiderated no less in a speech; the inspiration suddenly comes. Can 
κάθαρσις be somehow involved in the λύσις of a play? Turning then to the 
great locus in the Polstics upon which all hinges (1342a 4ff.), he dis- 
covers that κάθαρσις was intended to cover ἔλεος and φόβος as well as 
ἐνθουσιασμός. All three are the effects of a class of music: the κίνησις and 
κατάστασις of this music correspond to the δέσις and λύσις of the drama. 

He now attacks the famous definition itself of tragedy, and considers 
that Bernays' theory is disposed of by showing that the pity and fear of 
δι’ ἐλέον καὶ φόβον and παθημάτων are those awakened during the play 
itself. He realizes the grave difficulty presented by περὶ τὸν ὅμοιον in 
1458a 5. From every point of view the treatment of pity and fear in the 
Rhetoric compels us to define fear for the hero as pity. To turn this 
corner he quotes De anima 427b 21 ff.: ὅταν μὲν δοξάσωμεν δεινόν τι ἢ 
φοβερόν, εὐθὺς συμπάσχομεν, ὁμοίως δὲ κἂν θαρραλέον. κατὰ δὲ τὴν φαντασίαν 
ὡσαύτως ἔχομεν ὥσπερ ἂν οἱ θεώμενοι ἐν γραφῇ τὰ δεινὰ ἣ Gappare. If this is 
Aristotle’s conception of the effect οὗ a picture, will it not apply to 
tragedy? And Knoke expands by asking, What-is the effect of the Lao- 
coon? We fear he will be crushed in those terrible coils. It is a ques- 
tion then of immediate, unreflecting fear—in short τὸ ἐκπληκτικὸν (φρίτ- 
τομεν, 14536 5)! But a consideration of the following sentence in the 
Rhetoric (1383a 8) definitely proves that such was not the fear in Ari- 
stotle’s mind: ὥστε δεῖ τοιούτους παρασκενάζειν, ὅταν ἢ βέλτιον τὸ φοβεῖσθαι 
αὐτούς, ὅτι τοιοῦτοί εἰσιν οἷοι παθεῖν. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλοι μείζους ἔπαθον. Would 
Knoke maintain that the only pleasure afforded by painting and sculp- 
ture in Aristotle’s view is that of the vraisemblance or technique of C. 4, 
881-81 1 fear he would and refer us to Pol. 1340a 28 ff. He is now 


Boox Reviews 107 


ready fora retranslation. A comma is placed before περαίνουσα. δι᾽ ἐλέον 
καί φόβου is referred to μίμησις, describing in what it consists; it forms an 
amplification of σπουδαίας, making a further differentiation from comedy. 
Thus περαίνουσα---κάθαρσιν becomes an amplification of τελεῶς. 

Let us accept the comma before wepaivovoa. What follows? The 
pity and fear awakened in the δέσις of the play are quieted, not by some 
pleasurable self-exhaustion, but by the artistic device of the λύσις, in a 
manner analogous to the κατάστασις of the music of the Politics, which 
he presumes (so I understand him) worked to a “besanftigend Schluss.” 
There is some intolerable torture of ὅταν χρήσωνται (Pol. 1342a 9) to make the 
parallel complete, but it does not affect the value of the main argument. 

What then is the κάθαρσις effected by the Avois? He illustrates by 
analyzing Sophocles’ plays (except the Trachiniae). The heroes under- 
take a great emprise (πρᾶξις), fail terribly yet not wholly undeservedly 
(δι᾽ ἁμαρτίαν), but in the end (the λύσις) their soul is satisfied (harmonizing 
our sense of moral order in the universe). This does more than justice 
to Knoke’s argument, for I greatly sympathize with its latent possibili- 
ties, having myself attempted in a note at the St. Louis “Congress” to 
develop the significance of ἁμαρτα. But Knoke’s illustration from the 
actual dramas is rather disappointing. His failure is hopeless when it 
comes to the Antigone, where the woes of Kreon constitute the satisfac- 
tion (Genugtuung) which the heroine receives. Surely this is a second 
tragedy in the truest sense of the word. There is, however, a great under- 
lying truth in Knoke’s argument which is capable of profound develop- 
ment. My only criticism is of a certain narrowness of treatment which 
would tempt an unsympathetic reader to dismiss his interpretation of 
κάθαρσις as wooden poetic justice. How much more is involved in duapria! 
The drama succeeds artistically only when it produces a momentary 
acquiescence in the inscrutable mystery of life. All this is certainly 
implicit in Aristotle’s treatment of the tragic hero. But was there any 
such origina] implication in κάθαρσις ἴ 

Let us go back to the locus in the Politics and accept the position of 
Dr. Knoke that a whole class of music is referred to, the music of πάθος. 
The conclusion is irresistible that no artistic musical device such as a 
“besanftigend Schluss,” or a return to the original key, is here intended. 
The κάθαρσις is simply the continuous delight afforded by the music, 
which Aristotle holds, in opposition to Plato, to be “harmless,” and the 
philosopher’s reflection is the opposite of Jessica’s. He imprisons this 
strange effect of the music of pity, fear, and “enthusiasm” in a medical 
metaphor. So too in the definition of tragedy, where he is giving the 
ἔργον and not the method (despite Knoke), κάθαρσις is the ἡδονή of the 
drama — its justifiable pleasure as against Plato. 

To misconceive this direct effect of the drama is surely to fail of 
understanding the main content of the Poetics. Now Knoke appears 


108 Boox REVIEWS 


unconscious of the generalizing power of art, the great artistic secret 
which it is the imperishable honor of Aristotle to have first detached; as 
it is equally the honor of Professor Butcher to have so nobly developed 
this first excellence of Greek art. More than this, he has not fathomed 
the significance of Aristotle’s μίμησις, where Aristotle again parts com- 
pany with Plato. Half of the power of art lies in the fact that the emo- 
tions are not expressed but “imitated,” objectivized. The tyranny of the 
actual is broken, the self-regarding taint is purged away, and the “pain” 
of pity and fear is transmuted. There are no greater landmarks in 
aesthetics than these two; and they probably exhaust Aristotle’s first 
conception of κάθαρσις. 

It is a great pity that Butcher hampered himself with Bernays’ 
“emotional relief” (as hesumsitup). Emotional satisfaction or pleasure, 
when the emotions are forms of pain, is the subtle difficulty into which 
Bernays was searching equally with Aristotle, and which I hold Butcher 
would indisputably have solved had he fully sounded the content of 
δι’ ἁμαρτίαν. If Knoke objects that thus we make κάθαρσις a generic 
property of art, while Aristotle is confining it to tragedy, I would point 
out that the same difficulty attaches to σπουδαίας. It is poetry (therefore 
even comedy as well as tragedy) that is σπουδαιότερον icropias (14515 5). 
In short Knoke inserted a bad stone in his first course. φόβου is not 
nature’s crude material. He will find, too, that the balance of pity and fear 
belongs intimately to his theory of the λύσις, and is involved in δι᾽ ἁμαρτών. 

Professor Knoke was happily ignorant of Butcher’s work, which gives 
his essay peculiar value. His examination of previous German opinion 
cannot be excelled for completeness and brevity. τ. 5. Muwep 


ὈΝΙΨΕΒΒΙΤΥ CoLiece, ΤΟΒΟΝΤΟ 


Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition from Alcmaeon to 
Aristotle. By Joun I. Beare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 
1906. Pp. viii+ 354. 128. 6d. ᾿ 


Every student of Greek philosophy will welcome most heartily this 
work of diligent scholarship and intelligent criticism. The ‘higher’ reaches 
of philosophy, or metaphysic, are purposely disregarded by the author in 
order to limit the inquiry to the problems of empirical psychology. Such 
limitation was no doubt wise, as the investigation of particular questions 
clearly formulated is the best means of clearing up difficulties. Few will 
be found, therefore, to criticize the procedure of Professor Beare, though 
many will share the hope that he will go on in due time to take up other 
phases of early Greek thought. 

In his Introduction the author says (p. 1): 


The aim of the following pages is to give a close historial account of the 
various theories, partly physiological and partly psychological, by which the 


Book Reviews 109 


Greek philosophers from Alcmaeon to Aristotle endeavored to explain the 
elementary phenomena of cognition. The pre-Aristotelian writers who applied 
themselves to this subject, and of whose writings we possess any considerable 
information, are Alemaeon of Crotona, Empedocles, Democritus, Anaxagoras, 
Diogenes of Apollonia, and Plato. We propose to set forth here their specu- 
lations, together with those of Aristotle, as to the so-called Five Senses, Sen- 
. sation in general, and the psychical! processes, such as Imagination and Memory, 
which involve the synthetic function referred by Aristotle to Sense, and 
named by his Latin commentators the Sensus Communis. 

These words adequately express the scope and method of the inquiry. 

Of the works elucidated in detail, Aristotle’s De anima has received 
much attention and the excellence of the translations and commentaries 
leaves comparatively little to be desired; but the same cannot be said of 
' the Parva naturalia of Aristotle and the fragment of Theophrastus’ 
De sensu. To those who have been baffled by the inadequacy of the 
means for intelligent study of these works Beare’s book will prove a boon 
indeed. In the detailed exposition of these works I have found nothing 
which was clearly wrong, though there are many points at which one 
might incline to a different view from that adopted by the author. There 
are other passages, however, in which Beare seems to have been misled 
by somewhat uncritically following authority. This is particularly true 
where he indicates the supposed relation of a given philosopher’s psychol- 
ogy to his metaphysics— just where one should expect a slip in view of 
his express disregard of the latter field. To cite but a single instance: 
Speaking (p. 37) of Anaxagoras’ explanation of perception as affected by 
the operation of contrary upon contrary, Beare says: “This accords .... 
with his metaphysical doctrine of νοῦς dysyys.” It would be interesting 
to learn the grounds for this assertion, which is made, I believe, on the 
authority of Zeller. Again (tbid.), “The contrariety required by the doc- 
trine of Anaxagoras as one of the conditions of perception exists for all 
possible cases; since, according to the Anaxagorean doctrine way ἐν παντί, 
we have within us the contraries of all possible external objects.” It 
would be strange if Anaxagoras employed the principle πᾶν ἐν παντί to 
provide for the interaction of contraries in the field of perception, whereas 
elsewhere (e. g., in nutrition) he utilized it to furnish a basis for the action 
of like on like. Beare has not really faced the problem of interaction in 
perception, according to the testimony of Aristotle and Theophrastus. 
He seems to have overlooked the fact that Diogenes of Apollonia, who 
emphatically asserted the operation of like upon like, held much the same 
psychological] opinions as Anaxagoras. I have stated my conclusions on 
this matter elsewhere (“Qualitative Change in Pre-Socratic Philosophy,” 
Arch, fir Gesch. der Philos. XIX, pp. 369 ff.). 

It would be ungracious, however, to close a notice of so excellent a 
book with criticism. The work is certain to receive the favorable atten- 
tion which it so richly deserves. 

W. A. Heipe. 


110 Boox REvIEws 


Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-rémischen Osten. Mit 
besonderer Beritcksichtigung der Sprache. Bis auf die 
Zeit Hadrians: Hine Studie. Von Dr. Lupwie Hagn. 
Leipzig: Weicher, 1906. Pp. xvi+274. M. 8. 


While the influence of Greece upon Rome has been made the object 
of study from all possible sides, that of Rome upon Greece has received 
comparatively little attention. The author of this study quotes Thumb 
Die griechische Sprache im Zeittalter des Hellentsmus (Strassb., 
1901), in support of the novelty of his theme, and speaks of the lack 
of special works on the subject, which has made it necessary for 
him to rely mainly on primary sources. He hopes especially to 
inspire further investigation along various lines, and that the collec- 
tion of genuine Latin words in Greek will be of use to the Thes. 
Ling. Lat. The subject is treated chronologically under five heads: 
“The Italic Period,” “From Pyrrhus to Polybius,” “From the Destruc- 
tion of Corinth to the Battle of Actium,” “The Augustan Age,” and 
“The Early Empire (Tiberius-Trajan).” This arrangement leads to 
some inevitable repetitions, and to a division of topics which one 
would like to see given an uninterrupted treatment, but it is prob- 
ably the best one for the purpose which the author has in view, 
and the book is exceedingly interesting, stimulating, and suggestive. 
Each chapter contains a brief historical sketch, followed by a considera- 
tion of the Latin elements in the writers and in the inscriptions of the 
period. A very full bibliography is given, with an Index of Greek, 
Latin, Celtic, and other words. 

Even in the earliest period, though here we necessarily deal rather 
with probability than with established facts, the Roman influence on the 
language of Magna Graecia was not inconsiderable. Plato (Ep. v. 153) 
had expressed the fear that the speech of the Carthaginians and of the 
Opici, that is of the Romans, would banish Greek from the West, if the 
Greeks did not make a united effort to prevent it. Cato made a speech 
to the Athenians in Latin, through an interpreter, during the war with 
Antiochus, and Aemilius Paulus spoke in the same language at Amphipolis 
after Pydna. Legal business in particular required the use of Latin, 
since the documents concerned were in that language, and the legal 
terminology did not readily admit of translation, although bilingual 
copies of the more important documents existed at an early date. In the 
Greek versions of these the influence of the Latin vocabulary and even of 
the Latin syntax was so strong, that they were practically Latin expressed 
in Greek words. The Roman method of dating led to the taking-over into 
Greek of the terms ‘“‘ Kalendae,” “‘Nonae,” and “Idus.” The designations 
of the Roman officials were in part the result of an assimilation with 

»nding ones among the Greeks (στρατηγὸς ὕπατος), in part transla- 
aepevs), and in part transcriptions (δικτάτωρ). At the close of the 


Boox REvIEws 111 


second period the influence of Polybius was very great, both on account 
of his admiration for the Romans and because of his use of Roman 
sources. Occasionally he gives an explanation of the meaning of a 
Roman name, as in the case of Maximus and Transpadanus. Many of 
the words which he introduced were taken up by later writers and became 
ἃ permanent part of the language. The influence of Latin syntax is 
seen, for example, in the omission of the article and in the use of a 
dative absolute, corresponding to the Latin ablative absolute. 

During the third period the Roman system of administration contrib- 
uted to the Romanizing of the provinces and to the spread of the language 
among the provincials. At all times the founding of colonies and the 
extension of citizenship contributed to the same ends, the latter especially 
under the empire when citizenship was so freely granted. During the 
same epoch the manumission of slaves, who as freedmen assumed Roman 
names and eventually aspired to senatorial offices, was an important 
factor. The influence of the army was especially strong, both when the 
legions were made up of Roman citizens of Italic birth and later when 
they were composed of non-Italic citizens, and this influence was perpetu- 
ated by the numerous colonies of veterans. It is seen in a striking way 
in the adoption by the Christians of military metaphors and similes. 
Hardly less strong was the influence of merchants and traders, especially 
after the establishment of great commercial centers such as those at 
Delos and afterward at Corinth, who introduced the Roman coinage and 
the Roman system of weights and measures into foreign parts. The 
settlement of large numbers of Romans in the East was attended by the 
introduction of gladiatorial games and combats with wild beasts, with 
a new terminology, and such rulers as Herod the Great Romanized the 
dependent provinces at an early date. Caesar’s reform of the calendar 
led to the further extension of the Roman method of measuring time, as 
superior to those in use among the natives. Finally the Roman religion 
had its effect and in particular the cult of the emperors. 

The Romanization of the East was less rapid and less complete than 
that of the West, both because of the greater efforts exerted by the 
Romans in the West, and because of the strong though passive resistance 
of the oriental nations; yet the effect of the influences which have been 
mentioned was slow but sure. The influence on the colloquial language, 
since the common people were brought into close touch with the soldiers, 
traders, and the like, must have been greater even than that which 
appears in writers like Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus, 
and Plutarch, and in the official inscriptions; but in the absence of doc- 
uments this can only be inferred. As the writer suggests, an extension 
of the investigation to the time of Justinian, and an examination into the 
gradual dying-out of Romanism, would be most interesting. 

Joun C. Roire 


112 Book REVIEWS . 


The Mythology of Greece and Rome, Presented with Special 
Reference to Its Influence on Literature. By ARTHUR 
FargBangs. New York: Ὁ. Appleton and Co., 1907. Pp. 
xvii+408+4 tables. $1.50. 


Professor Fairbanks’ work consists of Introduction, two divisions on 
Myths of the Gods (nine chapters) and Myths of Heroes (four chapters), 
index, and four genealogical tables. Is is well printed and illustrated. 

A comparison with Gayley’s Classic Myths in English Literature will 
form the best basis on which to judge of its merits. Both works naturally 
have the same general content, but their scope is nevertheless not identi- 
cal, and there are many points of dissimilarity. Fairbanks confines him- 
self to myths of Greece and Rome; Gayley adds chapters on Norse Gods 
and Norse and Old German Heroes. Fairbanks includes quotations of 
Latin literature in the original, but excludes Greek, while Gayley makes 
use of both, but quotes in translation. Gayley’s main emphasis is natur- 
ally placed on English literature; the declared intention of Fairbanks is 
to draw from all literature later than the Greek. Fairbanks is in general 
more compact, and presents a greater array of detail: for example, his 
chapter on the “Gods in Homer,” which corresponds to Gayley’s “Attri- 
butes of the Gods of Heaven,” is not only a condensed exposition of 
Homeric mythology, but is accompanied by book and line references 
which will be of service to the classicist. Their comparative fulness of 
detail may be indicated by statistics: Fairbanks devotes to Heracles 
24 pp., Gayley 10; to the Argonauts 10, Gayley 6; but to’ Troy 36, 
Gayley 88. The ground covered in the introductions is substantially the 
same, though Fairbanks is more modern. Gayley is better provided with 
maps. Fairbanks contains one index; Gayley two, one of mythological 
subjects, the other of modern authors and artists. Fairbanks’ original 
intention of including references to modern art proved impossible of ful- 
filment, while Gayley makes this a prominent feature; but Fairbanks’ 
138 illustrations from ancient art are on the whole more fortunately chosen 
and more pleasing than Gayley’s 100 taken from both ancient and modern 
art, and are besides much more effective because of the tasteful and con- 
venient descriptive and interpretative comment subjoined to each 
example. Among differences of arrangement (less real than formal), may 
be noted the following: Fairbanks treats Myths of Heroes according to 
locality, as opposed to Gayley’s presentation of them according to family; 
Fairbanks’ quotations and references are conveniently given at the end 
᾿ of each section, while Gayley introduces quotations in the course of the 
narrative, and relegates references to the bottom of the page and to the 

commentary at the end of the book. Gayley’s interpretative suggestions 
are given in the commentary, Fairbanks’ in the text. Finally, not the 
least important difference between the two works lies in the fact that 


Boox REvirews 113 


Gayley is the superior story-teller—miscutt utile dulci lectorem delec- 
tando pariterque monendo. 

The above comparisons are not invidious, however. All the resem- 
blances and differences pointed out are grounded in the character and 
intentions of the authors. One is a teacher of English literature, gifted 
with the poetic temperament, and engaged in illuminating his subject 
for a more or less popular audience bythe use of classic myths; the other 
is a teacher of the classics illustrating mythology for a narrower circle by 
means of literature and ancient art, rather intent on detail, and some- 
what too watchful (after the manner of classical scholars) of the impres- 
sion he is making on brother classicists. In a word, Fairbanks is superior 
in illustration, convenience, fulness of detail in the text, and in presen- 
tation of the classical side; Gayley in charm of style, treatment of English 
literature and modern art, and in fulness of commentary. Those who are 
unacquainted with the ancient classics or whose first interest is in modern 
literature will continue to use Gayley; the classical] student or the one 
whose aim is familiarity with ancient literature will find Fairbanks more 
serviceable; but both may profitably come into the possession of all 


students of literature in general. 
Grant SHOWERMAN 
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 


Die Germanen in der antiken Literatur. Von RicHarp KUNZE. 
I. Teil: Rémische Literatur. Leipzig: Freytag; Wien: 
Tempsky, 1906. Pp. 113 and map. M. 1.20. 


In this little book Kunze has compiled for the use of the younger 
students of the Gymnasium a series of selections from Latin writers 
illustrating early German history from Augustus to the conquest of Italy 
by Theodoric the Great. The object of the author is not to add to the 
numerous helps in the teaching of German history now in vogue, still 
less to provide a textbook for teaching Latin, but, as he modestly puts it 
in the Preface, to give the student “ein Trunk frischen Quellwassers.” 
The list of sources from which selections are made will illustrate both 
the scope and the limitations of the book: Monumentum Ancyranum, 
Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, Pomponius Mela, Plinius (Maior), 
Tacitus’ Annalesand Historiae, Suetonius, Florus, Ammianus Marcellinus, 
and Jordanes. The author’s reason for omitting the well-known passages 
in Caesar B. G. iv and vi, to say nothing of the Germania of Tacitus, 
does not appear. Possibly these are reserved for subsequent parts, when 
we may expect also the passages from Plutarch, Strabo, Dio Cassius, and 
Josephus —selections which likewise bear upon early German history, 
and certainly are as wichtige as any which the author has included. 


BensamMin Terry 
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


114 Boox REVIEWS 


Aspects of the Speech in the Later Greek Epic. By GrEoRGE 
WICKER ELDERKIN. Johns Hopkins dissertation. Baltimore: 
privately printed, 1906, pp. 49. 


The author proposes to compare the speech in the later Greek epics, 
particularly in Quintus of Smyrna, with that in Homer. His claim that 
this may prove an important chapter of comparative study in Greek epic 
poetry is well established by his own work. The statistics for Homer 
had already been worked out by Schneidewin. In the Iliad 44 per cent. 
is speech, in the Odyssey 56 per cent.; Mr. Elderkin finds 29 per cent. in 
the Argonautica of Apollonius, 24 per cent. in the Posthomerica of 
Quintus, 12 per cent. in the Orphic Argonautica and 36 per cent. in 
Nonnus. There is also a marked decline in the number of speeches, 
Homer having one for every 21 verses, Apollonius one for every 41, 
Quintus one for every 50, Nonnus one for every 70. In length Apollonius 
and Quintus approximate the Homeric average, 10. 57 vv., while Nonnus 
more than doubles it. The author also works out the percentage of 
speech in the several books of Apollonius, Quintus, and Nonnus. How- 
ever, he will find many who will not admit the claim that the highest per- 
centages of speech are coincident with the points of highest dramatic 
interest. In their reluctance to begin or end a speech within a verse the 
later writers follow Homer, but in the Homeric practice of introducing 
speech within speech they almost entirely failed. The subjects of speaker 
and object addressed are next discussed. We are not surprised to learn 
that with rare exceptions these are gods and men. The horse of Achilles 
speaks, so does an eagle in Penelope’s dream. A crow speaks in Apollonius, 
and this fact gives occasion for a lengthy piece of erudition which had 
better been relegated to the footnotes. In Quintus the speakers are uni- 
formly gods and men. Of more interest is the manner of address. A 
list of the vocatives in the Posthomerica shows that the vocative with ὦ 
is more common in Quintus than in Homer, but there is a strict con- 
formity to Homeric regulations in not using ὦ with names of the gods, 
and with patronymics. Homer’s women do not use ὦ; Quintus’ do in 
only three instances. Perhaps this is not due to the masculinity of the 
speakers, but to familiarity and an assumption of equality with the per- 
sons addressed. The principles involved in the use of the vocative with 
or without the interjection were discovered by John A. Scott Am. Jour. 
Phil. XXIV, pp. 192 ff. and they hold true for Quintus with surprising 
precision. In the distribution of speeches, as in the Iliad Achilles, and 
in the Odyssey Odysseus, have much the larger number, so do Jason in 
Apollonius and Neoptolemus in Quintus. A radical departure from 
Homeric usage is seen in the number of speeches assigned to divinities. 
In the Iliad these are 27 per cent. of the whole, in Quintus only 10 per 
cent. This decline is due perhaps to a slight extent to oratio obliqua 


Book REvIEWS 115 


but much more to the reluctance of the later poets to repeat. On the 
monologue we find several suggestive paragraphs. In the discussion of 
the dialogue, it is rightly observed that the curtailing of the amount of 
this, especially dialogue between the gods, has greatly detracted from 
the Homeric character of the Posthomerica. The work closes with an 
analysis of the speeches of the ὅπλων κρίσις. All in all Dr. Elderkin has 


done an interesting and able piece of work. 
G. ὟΝ. Pascua 
. Wake Forest CoLLecE 


Etude sur la Thébaide de Stace. Par Lton Learas. Paris: 
1905. Pp. 366. 


The writer of this essay in criticism, on the Theban legends in Greece 
and in Rome, had prepared himself for it by writing an earlier book en- 
titled Les légendes thébaines dans l’epopée et la tragédie grecques. 
Indeed he frequently refers to his former paper and considers this as a 
sequel to it. It is not possible in a short review to give an adequate 
notion of the contents of a book so filled with facts and observations as. 
this. The book falls into two main divisions, the former dealing with the 
subject and sources of the poem and the latter with its execution. The 
twenty-six subdivisions or episodes of the Thebaid are discussed in 
detail, and referred to their origin: in general to Homer and the early 
dramatists, particularly Euripides, or to some of the various collections 
of mythological] fables, or, if the story is Roman, to Virgil. In no case is 
there any evidence of true poetic invention, but at best an admirable use 
of the material already gathered. Much the most interesting part of 
Legras’ book is found in the second part, which treats of the poet’s lite- 
rary execution. It is plain that we are dealing with a product of the 
schools of grammaticus, rhetor, and philosophus. The first furnishes 
the time-honored subject-matter, the second the methods of arrangement 
and treatment, and the third Statius’ views on man, nature, and the gods. 
Statius is quite vague in his knowledge of philosophy; his use of it is 
uncertain and often self-contradictory; he merely repeats what he has 
learned in the schools, in his reading of Virgil or Lucan. Similar remarks 
might be made concerning his management of epical ornaments and of 
his style. He is quite dependent on his predecessors and his innovations 
are usually not happy ones. 

Legras’ book is a praiseworthy, sober, and useful work. The author 
indulges in no excesses of rhetoric. He is lavish neither of praise nor 
blame, desiring above all to present his readers with actual facts and 


tangible results. 
JoHN M. Burnam 


UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI 


116 Boox REvIEews 


Latinitas and ἑλληνισμός. The influence of the Stoic theory of 
style as shown in the writings of Dionysius, Quintilian, 
Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Fronto, Aulus Gellius and 
Sextus Empiricus. By CuHarLes NEwTon SMILEY. Wiscon- 
sin dissertation. University of Wisconsin Bulletin, Philology 
and Literature Series III (1906). Pp. 205-72. $0.30. 


The scope of Dr. Smiley’s careful dissertation is defined in the title. 
Following in the steps of Professor Hendrickson, in whose penetrating 
studies of ancient rhetorical theory much emphasis is laid on the contri- 
butions made by the Stoics, Dr. Smiley traces this Stoic influence in 
Greek and Roman literary criticism from the reign of Augustus through 
that of Marcus Aurelius. He finds more Stoicism in Dionysius than has 
ever been suspected before, disposing somewhat too easily of the influence 
of Theophrastus and of Rademacher’s views on this matter. Quintilian 
is rightly characterized as a vigorous opponent of Atticism, and one 
wonders why he was “compelled to give a larger place in his treatise to 
Stoic principles than Cicero” does (p. 232). Cicero accepts the principles 
of Latinitas as rudimentary if not axiomatic (Brutus 140) and gives an 
appreciative description of the genus humile (Orator 75-90) as one, but 
not the only, constituent of eloquence. Quintilian, whose purpose is 
more pedagogic, sets forth the rules of good use at greater length 
(i. 5 ff), but does not differ from Cicero in his fundamental estimate of 
style. So with Pliny. His occasional commendations of pressus sermo 
purusque are not different in purport from Cicero’s eulogy of Caesar’s 
Commentaries (Brutus 262): they are hardly evidence of new and special 
influence of “Stoic” theory. Pliny might well, after the delivery of his 
Panegyricus feel inclined to less florid diction (Hp. iii. 18. 10) and yet 
remain leagues away from Stoicism. But though Pliny and Quintilian 
are Ciceronians, their own criticisms give evidence—and this is Dr. 
Smiley’s point—of the survival of “Attic” tendencies in their day. 
Tacitus, too, in his Dialogus, comes out for the simpler style, though we 
must make some allowance in such a work for dramatic imputation. We 
should welcome a study of the difference between Tacitus’ later manner 
and Atticism. Distinctly the most skilful and interesting chapter in the 
dissertation is that on Fronto. To him, both Cicero and Cato are 
fountain-heads of eloquence; Stoicism and rhetorical embellishment are 
no longer at odds. The “theory of style which was formulated by those 
who sought simply docere has in the age of Fronto been appropriated by 
those whose chief object is delectare” (p. 259). This same fusion of 
tendencies, with a plentiful admixture of pedantry, appears also in 
Aulus Gellius.° Sextus Empiricus, the last writer treated, shows in his 
attack on grammar that there are still Atticists to demolish. It would 
be interesting to determine, if one could with any certainty, how much 
of the later criticism of Stoic principles was called forth by contemporary 


Boox REVIEWS 117 


movements and how much was traditional—an echo of the discussions 
of Cicero’s day. We hope Dr. Smiley may find occasion to follow the 
fortunes of Stoicism in stil] later periods of the empire, and to round out 
his present treatment by a chapter on the philosopher Seneca. 

E. K. Ranp 


HarvarRp UNIVERSITY 


The Golden Days of the Renarssance in Rome from the Pontifi- 
cate of Julius II to that of Paul III. By Ropoiro 
LanolaNiI. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pp. xii+340. $5.00. 


This sumptuous volume is similar in style to the author’s earlier 
English books. Like them it is profusely and beautifully illustrated, 
and furnishes very entertaining reading. The titles of its seven chapters 
are, “ The City,” “Life in the City,” “ Paul ITI,” “Michelangelo,” “ Vit- 
toria Colonna,” “Raphael,” and “Agostino Chigi,” but these titles serve 
as convenieut pegs on which to hang a great variety of topics. About all 
that is of any value for the classical student is scattered through the first 
three chapters, in which the author deals with the improvements of 
various kinds that were carried on during the two hundred years after 
the return of Gregory XI in 1377, and describes the condition of the city 
itself and of the monuments of antiquity, and their treatment by popes 
and cardinals. For instance, he gleans from a bull of Martin V the in- 
formation that in 1425 the butchers had established themselves in the 
forum of Nerva and in the theater of Marcellus, the fishmongers in the 
portico of Octavia, the tanners in the stadium of Domitian, the glass- 
blowers in the baths of Agrippa, etc. Attention is rightly called to one 
fact which is usually overlooked, that is that only “scanty vestiges of 
mediaeval Rome are left standing. If we except a few churches which 
have been spared the heinous transformations of the seventeenth century, 
a few baronial towers not yet whitewashed or turned into tenements, and 
a few private houses which have not yet fallen into the hands of specu- 
lators, Rome offers no connecting link between the classic and the modern 
age’’(p. 47). The explanation of this condition of things (p. 49), however, 
is hardly adequate. 

As in all Lanciani’s books, many things are stated as facts that are not 
universally accepted as such. E. g., on p. 37, n., on the “received notion” 
about the Tarpeian Rock; the “notion” has not yet been disproved. The 
identification (pp. 122, 145) of the ruins in the Colonna gardens with 
Aurelian’s Temple of the Sun is more than doubtful. No such accuracy 
of measurement of the ancient water supply as is found on p. 77 is pos- 
sible. The statement p. 140 about the origin of the university of Rome 
is amazing. The book is interesting to the genera] reader, for whom it 
is plainly intended, but is otherwise unimportant. 

Samoet Batt Puatner 


118 Book REVIEWS 


The Silver Age of the Greek World. By JoHN PENTLAND 
Manarry. Chicago: University ot Chicago Press, 19086. 
Pp. 482. $3.00. 


“This book,” says the author in a brief preface, “is intended to 
replace my Greek World under Roman Sway, now out of print, in a 
maturer and better form, and with much new material superadded.” 
From this remark, as well as from the new title, the reader expects that 
the work has been largely recast. Such is not the case, however. One 
chapter has been divided into two, a few additions have been made, a 
few more parallels added, and a few biographical notes appended. But 
these alterations are all unimportant. They appear as nothing when 
compared with those which Hirschfeld has made in the new edition of his 
well-known Untersuchungen. The work belongs, in fact, to 1890, not to 
1906. The books, theories, and discoveries which theauthor characterizes 
as recent belong usually to the eighties of last century. Only one of the 
many examples can be given here, but from it the inferences are obvious. 
“The recent researches of the French School at Delos,” he says, p. 252, 
“have led to the discovery of private houses there also, one of them not 
ruined beyond recognition.” One would imagine that the author had in 
mind the magasins unearthed by M. Jardé in 1908 (BCH., 1905, pp. 5 ff.), 
or the dwellings described by M.Couve in 1895 (BCH., 1895, pp. 460 ff.). 
But no: the recent researches were made by M. Paris in 1883 (BCH., 
1884, pp. 473 ff.) Furthermore, enumerations of inscriptions are simply 
reprinted from the earlier work though they are now incomplete. Thus, 
at Delos M. Homolle is said “to have already recovered sixty slabs with 
at least 400 multifarious inscriptions. One of them, an inventory of the 
treasures of the temples, . . . . occupies forty-eight large pages of close 
printing” (p. 135). Since 1890, however, over 350 new Delian inscrip- 
tions have been published, many by M. Homolle, and among them other 
inventories, one of which occupies 41 pages in the Bulletin (1903, 
pp. 62 ff.). Old editions are cited, as in the case of the works of Dion 
Chrysostom, and the remark which accompanies the citation only makes 
the matter worse: “I quote uniformly from the Teubner text (of Dion), 
which is the only handy and critical one (ed. Dindorf, 1857),” p. 269. 
Does Dr. Mahaffy forget or ignore von Arnim’s magnificent edition? 
Important works like Beloch’s Griechische Geschichte, Colin’s Rome et 
la gréce, Harnack’s Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, and 
von Arnim’s Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa are not mentioned. 
Many errors might have been corrected had Kirchner’s Prosopographia 
Attica been consulted. 


1It would be unfair, perhaps, to demand from Dr. Mahaffy a reference to the 
recent discovery of a ‘‘new Pompeii” at Delos, on which a preliminary report 
appeared in the Comptes Rendus de l’ Académie des Inscriptions 1904, pp. 726 ff, and 
a detailed account in the Bulletin for 1906, pp. 483 ff. 


Book REVIEWS» 119 


The reviewer is of opinion that the book has not been revised with 
sufficient care. He has had no thought, however, of condemning the 
original work. Indeed the wide sweep of Dr. Mahaffy’s knowledge, the 
indefatigable energy with which he has ransacked a very large and very 
scrappy mass of literature, the dramatic vividness of his descriptions 
(cf. pp. 199 ff.), and the frank impulsiveness of his judgments astonish 
the reader today as much as they did seventeen years ago. The book 


was well worth reprinting. 
W. S. Frerauson 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 


Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Aegypten: Ein Beitrag 
zur Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus. Von WALTER OTTo. 
Leipzig: Teubner, 1905. Pp. xiv-+ 418. Μ. 18. 


This volume well fills a distinct want. One of the greatest difficulties 
confronting the investigator in oriental antiquity is the lack of good 
handbooks covering the special fields. This is particularly true of Egypt, 
where the constant access of new material makes it difficult to produce a 
final or measurably complete. treatment of any field. Otto has, therefore, 
undertaken a piece of work which may need to be repeated in a few years, 
when new documents have been found, but is not less welcome nor use- 
ful. The extensive modern literature of the subject has been exhaustively 
employed throughout. Otto shows himself to be a worthy pupil of his 
distinguished master, Professor Wilcken. . 

Beginning with the gods of Hellenistic Egypt, to which he neces- 
sarily devotes a short chapter, he passes to an exhaustive treatment of 
the organization of the priesthood. Here we find the priests of the 
Egyptian Greek, as well as Roman and oriental gods. A complete list 
of known high-priests of Alexandria is appended, with two others con- 
taining the known eponymous priests together with the few known priests 
of the Museum. These furnish a directory invaluable for reference in 
the identification of disconnected and undated documents, and partly 
compensate for an index, which the work should have had. The hier- 
archy of ancient Egypt can be traced back to a remoter date than in 
any other country. As early as the sixteenth century Β. o. the separate 
priests of the different temples had been united in a national organization 
under the headship of the high-priest of Ammon at Thebes. It is the 
culmination of this oldest of all hierarchies in the Ptolemaic age which 
Otto describes in this second chapter. A third chapter is devoted to the 
career and social-industrial position of the priests, while the final chapter 
presents the economic aspect of the temple in Ptolemaic times. 

The work forms a welcome addition to the working library of the 
historian, the classicist, the papyrologist, and the orientalist in general. 


James H. Breasrep 
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


120 | Boox REVIEWS 


Geschichte Roms in seinem Uebergange von der republikanischen 
zur monarchischen Verfassung. Von W. Drumann. 2te 
Auflage, herausgegeben von P. GrorsBe. . Bd. III: Domitii 
—lulii. Leipzig: Borntrager, 1906. Pp. xi+829. M. 24. 


Drumann in his day had to meet the criticism that his work was 
not a history of Rome, but only contained material for the study of Roman 
history. That criticism cannot be made with justice against this volume, 
because a review of Caesar’s exploits, with which it is almost exclusively 
concerned, supplemented by the necessary study of the movements of 
his rival, Pompey, constitutes the story of Rome during the period under 
consideration. The volume, therefore, meets the requirements of a history, 
and has the added charm which attaches toa biography. As a biography 
of Caesar, in its revised form, it easily holds the first place among such 
works in the matter of accuracy and completeness. The thorough 
acquaintance which Grobe showed with the sources and with modern litera- 
ture in the earlier volumes comes out in a still more striking way in this one. 

In perhaps no period of Roman history has investigation been more 
active during the last twenty-five years than in that which runs from 
Caesar’s first consulship to his death. The approximate completion of the 
Corpus, the revision of the text of Cicero’s Letters, the studies in political 
history of Schmidt, Hirschfeld and Holzapfel, and in military history of 
Stoffel, Géler and others have greatly enlarged our knowledge of the facts 
and corrected our impressions of persons and events. With the results 
of this work down to the minutest details Grobe in his notes and appen- 
dices has shown an intimate acquaintance. In fact he has himself made 
very important contributions to our knowledge. Following in the main 
the plan of the earlier volumes he has allowed Drumann’s text to stand 
unchanged, but has made additions or suggested modifications of Dru- 
mann’s statements in his notes. The longer additions to the work are 
placed in an appendix which runs from p. 693 to p. 827. There are seven- 
teen of these supplements, the more important of which deal with Caesar’s 
legions and legates in the several wars, with the outbreak of the Civil War, 
with Caesar’s dictatorships, with the Dyrrachium-Pharsalus campaign, 
and with the Roman calendar in the years 65-43 s.c. The supplement 
last mentioned covers 72 pp., and is contributed by Prof. Ginzel, the well- 
known author of Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse. 
Following a suggestion of Mommeen the editor in this volume has placed 
his own briefer comments at the foot of the page, and has thereby greatly 
facilitated the reading of the book. How thoroughgoing Grdbe’s 
revision has been may be seen by glancing at almost any page. Some- 
times a change in Drumann’s statements is called for by a change in the 
text of an ancient author (cf. 6. g., p. 257, n. 9; 275, n. 8; 388, n. 9), or by 
a better interpretation of a passage, while sometimes investigations made 


Book REVIEWS 121 


since Drumann’s time have materially altered the views of scholars (cf. 
e. g., p. 263, n. 4; 264, n. 1; 266, nn. 2, 3). If it had been his purpose to 
do so, the editor could not have brought out in a more interesting, con- 
crete way, than his notes bring it out, the progress which has been made 
in Roman history in the last few decades. We cannot close this review, 
however, without noticing one defect in his plan of revision which con- 
cerns this volume particularly. Drumann’s harsh estimate of Cicero’s 
character and statesmanship is not commonly accepted by scholars today. 
That could, of course, be properly revised only by rewriting the text. 
Frank Frost Assotr 


Q. Asconit Pediani orationum Ciceronis quinque enarratio, 
recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit Albertus 
Curtis Clark. Oxonii: 6 typographio Clarendoniano, 1907. 
Pp. xxxv+104. 3s. 6d. 


Cornelii Taciti Annalium ab excessu divi Augusti libri, recogno- 
vit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit C. Ὁ. Fisher. Ibid. 
No page numbers. $1.50. 


The transmission of Asconius is through a manuscript found by Poggio 
at St. Gall in 1416, which has since disappeared. The problem of the 
editor is therefore the reconstruction of the text of this lost codex. 
Poggio was accompanied by two friends, Zomini (Sozomenus) and Bar- 
tolomaeo di Montepoliciano. All three made copies of the manuscript, 
and those of the last two (codd. S and M) have come down to us. At 
the time when the last critical edition of Asconius was made, that of 
Kiessling and Schdll in 1875, it was believed that the copy made by 
Poggio was lost, although the MSS of Asconius with the exception of 
S and M were copied from this codex (known as P). As long ago as 1896 
(see Class. Rev. X, p. 301) Mr. Clark expressed the opinion that a manu- 
script at Madrid (cod. Matritensis x. 81) was the oldest of the Poggio 
family, and that it was possibly written by Poggio himself. In 1899 
(Class. Rev. XIII, p. 119) he still hesitated to assert positively that the 
Matritensis was the lost P, although this opinion was held by Krohn and 
others. In his edition, however, he designates it as P=Matritensis x. 81 
a Poggio scriptus. This new edition then not only gives us the text of 
Asconius in a more attractive form than before, but a new rescension of 
the text. Besides his own collation of P, the editor had the use of one 
made by Skutsch. An introduction gives an account of the life of 
Asconius together with a history and an examination of cod. P. The 
apparatus criticus, though not professing to be complete, is much fuller 
than is usual in the volumes of this series. 

No such good fortune has attended the editor of the Annals. He 


122 Boox REVIEWS 


has given a conservative text, following the codd. Medicei in a number of 
places where the other editors have departed from them. He has intro- 
duced but three conjectures of his own, including a change in the 


punctuation of |. 53. 
Joon C. Roure 


On the Social Standing of Freedmen as Indicated in the Latin 
Writers, preceded by a discussion of the use and meaning of 
the words libertus and libertinus. By JoHN JACKSON 
Crumuey. PartI. Johns Hopkins Dissertation, Baltimore: 
privately printed, 1906, Pp. 1-43. 

The purpose of Dr. Crumley’s dissertation is stated by him to be “to 
collect the materials on which may be founded.a historical survey of the 
social standing of the Roman freedmen.” The present part gives the data 
gathered apparently in full from Plautus to Suetonius and excerpted 
from the important later writings, including the law-codes. Inscriptions 
are not taken into account. Although the evidence they might give 
would very likely have agreed in the main with that drawn from literary 
sources, it is to be regretted that they were not employed;—in studies of 
this sort no distinction can be made between literature and inscriptions. 
Certainly if the study of the social standing of freedmen—the subject 
announced in the main title, but only touched on in the first half-page—is 
ever undertaken, it will have to be based primarily on epigraphical sources. 

After brief discussions of the suffixes -to and -ino which add nothing 
to our knowledge, Crumley quotes a large number of passages in which 
libertus and libertinus are used, supplementing his quotations in full by 
lists of passages in which the words appear, and comes to the conclusion 
that libertus always means ‘one who has been freed from slavery,’ and 
that its use to indicate ‘relationship to patron,’ given in the lexica, is 
merely an attendant circumstance; libertinus is always an adjective 
denoting ‘one who is reckoned in the rank, the class, the category of 
liberti; and that in a single passage of Suetonius which has unduly 
influenced even modern writers, libertini is restricted to ‘the free-born 
sons of liberti.’ This is an interesting lexigraphical result. The study 
might well have occupied, under its proper title, a dozen pages in a 
journal. But the question arises whether we may not demand of our 
candidates for the doctorate results a little more weighty and significant. 
The writer of the present dissertation has shown great industry in gather- 
ing his material, but mere industry, commendable as it is, cannot be rated 
very high. A few significant contributions whereby our knowledge of 
the social position of the Roman freedman could be made more exact, 
would be worth many pages of confirmatory references. 


CLIFFORD HERSCHEL ΜΟΟΒΕ 
HarRvakD UNIVERSITY 


Book REvIEws 123 


Homer und die altionische Elegie. Von DiETtTRICH MUELDER. 
Hannover: List, 1906. Pp. 51. M. 1.50. 


This productive and original investigator advances two main theories 
concerned with the Iliad. The Odyssey is ignored. The Iliad is a unit, 
the poet had before him an older Jliad in which Achilles had no part. 
This poet added the hero Achilles, and in order to connect him with the 
poem in which he did not appear conceived the idea of the “Wrath.” 
The “Wrath” is thus loose binding-material to connect Achilles with the 
original Iliad — books ii-viii and x-xii. How he has been added to dis- 
place an original hero in these books is seen in many examples, e. g., 


B. 768. ἀνδρῶν, αὖ μέγ᾽ ἄριστος ἔην Τελαμώνιος Αἴας" 
ὄφρ᾽ ᾿Αχιλεὺς piney: ὁ γὰρ πολὺ φέρτατος ἦεν, 

Here, as elsewhere, the “Wrath” is the means by which Ajax is made 
subordinate and Achilles is added to the poem. Milder thus inverts 
the theory of Grote and others, who made Achilles the original hero 
of the Iliad. The second theory is that the Iliad was composed under 
the influence of the Ionic Elegiac poets, such as Callinus and Tyrtaeus. 
This is shown by the general composition of the poem, e. g., the 
preparations for battle, as in the advice of Nestor and the various 
details, are those of closed ranks of clans and tribes, where under 
perfect contro] great masses advance in silence. All this is in accord 
with the details of the time of Tyrtaeus, but when the armies meet it is 
not the armies which fight, but individuals, no “clans aiding clans;” it is 
not σιγῇ ἱέναι, but μακρὸν ἀύσας and βοὴν ἀγαθός which are now praised. 
That is, in details of plans and preparations the poet describes his own 
* times, but in the combat he falls back on epic tradition. The phrase 
σιγῇ ἰέναι and B. 362: 


κρῖν᾽ ἄνδρας κατὰ φῦλα, κατὰ ppyrpas, ᾿Αγάμεμνον. 

ὡς φρήτρη φρήτρηφιν ἀρήγῃ, φῦλα δὲ φύλοις. 
and kindred ideas belong to elegiac poetry and the conditions of the 
poet’s age, while προμαχίζειν, μακρὸν ἀύσας, βοὴν ἀγαθός, βοὴ δ᾽ ἄσβεστος, 
belong to the material he took over into his poem. A second proof of 
- elegiac influence is based on individua] passages, 6. g., xxii. 71 ff. 


νέῳ δέ τε πάντ᾽ ἐπέοικεν, 

ἀρηικταμένῳ, δεδαϊγμένῳ ὀξέ, χαλκῷ 

κεῖσθαι" πάντα δὲ καλὰ θανόντι περ, ὅττι φανήῃ" 
These are clearly words inciting young men to dare death, yet in Homer 
they urge flight. In Tyrtaeus they exhort the youth to die and save their 
sires. The added lines in Homer, describing the horror of being torn by 
dogs, destroy the picture there given of the beauty of the corpse of a 
young man. These lines are in place in Tyrtaeus, they are an adaptation 


124 Book REVIEWS 


in Homer. The appeal to the Greeks in xv. 661 ff. to fight for children, 
wives, and possessions, is out of place in the story of the Iliad, as they were 
never in danger, but it was exactly for their safety that the elegiac poet 
inspired the Ionic warriors. Homer adapted this elegiac commonplace by 
adding the phrase “who are not present.” The verse ii. 204, οὐκ ἀγαθὸν 
πολυκοιρανίη" εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω, belongs to the struggles in which kings were 
overthrown or tyrants established; it is opposed to the whole spirit of the 
Iliad, but belongs to the age of elegiac poetry. xii. 243 εἷς οἰωνὸς ἄριστος, 
ἀμύνεσθαι περὶ πάτρης. In Ionia the oracle was often bribed to betray the 
people, hence to arouse a people cast down by a venal priesthood the 
poet pleads the higher claim of country. No one had advised Hector 
to abandon his country, so there is no occasion for Homer using this 
thrilling verse of some elegiac poet. 

Milder has advanced startling yet convincing theories of the manner 
and age of the composition of the liad. However one may approve of 
the argument, it seems impossible that the Greeks themselves should 
have assigned such authority and antiquity to the Iliad had it been 
founded on poems of the age of Tyrtaeus and Callinus. 

Joun A. Soorr 


NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 


Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des 
Mittelalters. Herausgegeben von Ludwig Traube. Band I, 
Heft 3: Untersuchungen zur Ueberlieferungsgeschichte der 
altesten lateinischen Monchsregeln. Von Heribert Plenkers. 
Manchen: Beck, 1906. Pp. xi+ 100. Mit zwei Tafeln. M. 7. 


This work, which completes the first volume of the new Quellen und 
Untersuchungen reminds us vividly of what scholarship, both classical 
and mediaeval, has lost by Traube’s death. The subject of the work recalls 
at once Traube’s brilliant investigations of the Textgeschichte der Regula 
S. Benedicti (1898). Completely reversing the methods of his predeces- 
sors, Schmids and Wolfflin, Traube showed that the older extant MSS of 
the Benedictine rule represent a later and interpolated edition (3), pre- 
pared, most probably, by Simplicius, the third abbot of Monte Cassino; 
certain younger MSS, on the other hand, descend almost immediately 
from the autograph of St. Benedict, of which a copy had been made by 
order of Charlemagne at the close of the eighth century. The best repre- 
sentative of this “normal text” (y), is Codex Sangallensis 914 (= A) 
copied directly and most carefully from Charlemagne’s MS in 817 or soon 
after, for Reginbert of Reichenau. With A and a few other MSS, it is pos- 
sible to reconstruct ψ well nigh exactly. Σὲ must be reckoned with now 
and then, since Benedict’s autograph may have been written in a difficult 
cursive hand, leading to mistakes in Charlemagne’s copy. 


ῖ 


Book REVIEWS 125 


Dr. Plenkers, an intimate friend of Traube’s, and for some years a 
member of the Benedictine order, now takes up the subject afresh, in 
preparation for an edition of all the early monastic rules, which he will 
publish in the Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclestasticorum., He has 
collated and studied MSS both known and unknown, particularly four 
Spanish MSS and a recently discovered Tréves MS of Benedict of Aniqne. 
This Benedict compiled in the early ninth century a collection of various 
monastic rules (Codex regularum) as well as a Concordantia Regularum. 
From the Tréves MS we can now corroborate Traube’s argument that 
Benedict had followed for the Regula Benedicti the Carolingian text. 
Plenkers’ minute investigations confirm Traube’s general results decis- 
ively. In only one particular does he find it necessary to modify them; 
he believes that the & recension is not the work of Simplicius or any one 
man, but is the result of a gradual process of error and emendation. But 
the instances adduced by Plenkers, it seems to me, rather prove than dis- 
prove Traube’s views. Unless more convincing evidence can be shown, 
there is no need of a new hypothesis. In any event, it is now possible to 
edit, with few chances of mistake, the original autograph of S. Benedict. 
Dom Morin has already (1900) published the Sangallensis, with an appa- 
ratus of readings from the important Monte Cassino MSS. Plenkers’ work 
contains other matters of interest and importance on Benedict of Aniane, 
on Holstenius and other seventeenth-century editors, on the transmission 


of martyrologies, and on the Regula Cassiani. 
E. K. Ranp 


HarvarpD UNIVERSITY 


Aristotle, De Sensu and De Memoria. Text and Translation with 
Introduction and Commentary. By G. ΒΕ. T. Ross. Cam- 
bridge: University Press, 1906. Pp. ix+303. 9s. 


Dr. Ross’s edition of the De sensu and De memoria is a revision of a 
doctoral dissertation presented to the University of Edinburgh, and as 
such is very creditable indeed. The text is that of Biehl, with slight 
changes which are noted. In 441α 14 the editor conjectures πυρρουμένων 
“reddened” for πυρουμένων “ignited” of the MS. Asa result of following 
Biehl] so closely he sometimes gives an obviously wrong reading without 
supplying the means of correcting it. Thus in 4366 18: τὸ yap ἡδὺ δια- 
κρίνει καὶ τὸ λυπηρὸν airy περὶ τὴν τροφήν, Unless we are to have a new 
doctrine of the pronoun, αὐτῇ is impossible, and we must read αὕτη with 
the Berlin editors. Cf. 439 α 3: ἀντίκειται yap τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ αὕτη. Again 
in 448 a 17: ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σύστοιχα, γένει δ᾽ ἕτερα, we ought at least to be informed 
that the Berlin edition reads, καλῶ σύστοιχα. I have sometimes thought of 
ταὐτὰ ὡς σύστοιχα. 

The translation which accompanies the text, though not flawless, is 


126 Book Reviews 


an improvement on all predecessors and shows a good understanding of the 
Greek and of Aristotle’s technical terminology. The introductory essay on 
Aristotle’s physiology and psychology of the senses is well written, and 
the commentary reveals a sufficient acquaintance with the Aristotelian 
literature of the subject. As a whole, then, the book will admirably fulfil 
its purpose which is to “meet the needs of students of philosophy who, 
not being expressly classical scholars, have hitherto had no adequate 
means of becoming acquainted with these two important works.” 

Reserving for another occasion discussion of some of the philosophical 
questions raised, I will confine myself here to the mention of a few pas- 
sages in which I am unable to accept Dr. Ross’s interpretation. 

436 a 11 ταῦτα refers, I think, only to ἡδονή re καὶ λύπη; if it explicitly 
included the preceding list γάρ would have been used instead of καὶ γάρ. 

436 b 14, ἰδίᾳ δ᾽ ἤδη καθ᾽ ἕκαστον, etc.; not, “to each animal in its own 
proper nature touch and taste must necessarily accrue,” but rather “ pro- 
ceeding now to speak of the special senses in each case.” ἰδίᾳ opposes 
the discussion of the special senses to αἴσθησις in general. This is appa- 
rent from the following ἡ μὲν . . . . ai δὲ, etc. See also Plato, Tim. 65 B, 
Ta... . κοινὰ) (τὰ δ᾽ ἐν ἰδίοις μέρεσιν' Perhaps we should read καθ᾽ ἑκάστην. 
Cf. Michael ed. Wendland, p. 1, καὶ ἰδίᾳ περὶ ἑκάστης τῶν αἰσθήσεων. 

438 a 10, οὐδέ πω δῆλον ἦν; not, “but he (Democritus) seems to have 
attained to no clear general theory,” etc. It is rather the science of his 
age which had not yet advanced so far. 

440 ὃ 30, σχεδὸν γάρ ἐστι τὸ αὐτὸ πάθος οὐκ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς, etc., “while as 
subjective phenomena they are practically identical, their vehicle is di- 
verse.” This interpretation, for which the notes argue, is refuted not only 
by 443 b 14, ὅπερ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι ὁ χυμός, τοῦτ᾽ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι καὶ ὕδατι ἡ ὀσμή, but 
also, I think, by Plato, Tim., 67 E, ἐκείνων παθήματα γεγονότα ἐν ἄλλῳ γένει 
τὰ αὐτὰ. 

450 a 20, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ viv πᾶσι διὰ τὸ μὴ πάντα χρόνον αἴσθησιν ἔχειν, “since as 
facts are, all living beings do not possess it, because not all have a sense 
of time.” The meaning in free paraphrase is rather: (and this supposition 
that if memory depended on νοῦς it would be denied to many animals that 
now possess it need not surprise us) “since even as things are all animals 
do not possess it because all have not the sense of time.” Dr. Ross’s 
notion that οὐδὲ viv πᾶσι refers to God or the heavenly bodies who are above 
not below memory is fantastic. He argues that ἐπεί cannot carry any 
meaning analogous to that which I have given it. But a dissertation on 
ἐπεὶ would show that there are hardly any limits to its carrying power 
where the context supplies the matter of a transitional parenthesis. 

449 ὃ 84, καὶ τούτῳ ᾧ αἰσθάνεται, etc., “and the organ of memory is that 
which enables us to perceive time,” rather: ““and they remember by 
means of the organ by which they perceive time.” It is so taken by 
Themistius. 


Boox REVIEWS 127 


4δ8 α 7, διαφέρει δὲ τοῦ μνημονεύειν τὸ ἀναμιμνήσκεσθαι ov μόνον κατὰ Tov 
χρόνον, “not merely in the superiority of the sense of time which it in- 
volves,” with the comment, p. 284, “evidently to have recollection proper 
one must remember μέτρῳ." But it is not at all evident. All proper 
memory as opposed to mere μονὴ αἰσθήματος requires a definite conscious- 
ness of the past as does ἀνάμνησις, to accept provisionally Aristotle’s un- 
justifiably rigid distinction. But it is impossible to see how ἀνάμνησις of 
& proper name for example involves a measured memory of the precise 
interval since the original experience more than μνήμη does. Themistius 
glosses κατὰ τὸν χρόνον by πρότερον yap ἡ μνήμη τῆς ἀναμνήσεως. Michael 
takes it in the same way. And this simple interpretation is probably 
right. 

Pavut SHOREY 


Die Praposition als sinnverstarkendes Prdfix im Rigveda, in den 
homerischen Gedichten und in den Lustspielen des Plautus 
und Terenz. Von KATHARINE VON GARNIER, geb. MoEWES. 
Leipzig: Privately printed, 1906. Pp. vi+65. 


This pamphlet seems to be a pleasant example of the pursuit of 
“knowledge for the sake of knowledge.” Mrs. von Garnier devoted 
herself to linguistic studies primarily for the sake of companionship 
with her sons, and thence conceived the idea of preparing herself for the 
doctorate. 

Of the prepositions examined in the dissertation, the Sanskrit dt, 
abht, ud, pdri, prd, and vi; the Greek ἀμφί, dd (ζά), ἐξ, κατά, περί, πρό, 
trép, and lastly the Latin com, de, per, prae, and pro are found to have 
an intensive force in composition. This always bears some relation to the 
original loca] sense, yet prepositions of similar meaning do not necessarily 
develop alike in different languages. As the intensive force increases the 
local force diminishes. The first stage of development appears in com- 
position with the verbs “to be” and “to become.” This appears clearly 
in the Rigveda, is rare in Homer, and no longer existent in Plautus and 
Terence. The apparently intensive use of ἐν and in is denied, that of 
super and ex ascribed chiefly to Greek influence. 

There are occasional] inaccuracies in quotation, and some misprints, 
none of which, however, is serious. A few changes should be made in 
the references: p. 36, 1. 3 from the bottom read p. 436 for p. 430. In the 
third paragraph of p. 5 read VIII, 92, 6 for VIII, 81, 6, and in |. 6 from 
the bottom read VIII, 89, 6 for VIII, 78, 6 and VIII, 97, 9 for VIII, 86, 9. 
In the next line read VIII, 97, 10 for VIII, 86, 10 and VIII, 98, 2 for 
VITI, 87, 2. At the top of p. 43 read Merc. 143 for Men. 143. 

Ivy KELLERMAN 


128 Boox ReEvizws 


Horace's Alcaic Strophe. By Leon Josian RicHaRpson. Uni- 
versity of California Publications: Classical Philology I, 
No. 6, 1907. Pp. 175+ 204. $0.25. 


This paper answers statistically the question, How did Horace 
alrange words, regarded purely as groups of syllables, without reference 
to meaning, in the several] lines of the alcaic strophe? The author 
then finds that the statistics support Hephaestion’s description of 
the eleven-syllabled alcaic line; it is an epionic trimeter catalectic, 
x—-v-|-—--2-|--t. Further, the nine-syllabled alcaic is an 
iambic dimeter hypercatalectic; the ten-syllabled line is logaoedic in the 
ancient sense, dactylic dipody plus ditrochee. 

No doubt it is well that some one should be willing to do such labori- 
ous counting as is here summed up; the facts may prove to have a 
meaning. But the paper illustrates anew the need of judgment and a 
broader view to make such work profitable. Was such counting needed 
to discover, does it in any degree strengthen, Professor Richardson’s con- 
clusions as to the last two lines of the strophe? “Evidences of iambic 
movement are seen in the sequence of quantities,” he tells us on p. 185. 
Why, of course! And as to the first line, even if his reasoning were 
cogent, what of it? Who disputes that Hephaestion’s description is 
metrically correct? But to assume that this metrical description describes 
the rhythm, as the new metricians do, simply begs the question. By his 
remarks on p. 187 it would seem that the author has given little attention 
to Aristoxenos— here also following the new metricians. He seems not 
to understand what an irrational foot is. Does he really imagine that 
canés, when made an irrational iambus, was indistinguishable from canés? 
Other loose statements or serious misconceptions cannot be taken up 
here; but how could one collect these statistics without once noticing 
their bearing on the questions about the relation between word-accent 
and ictus? The tables offer interesting suggestions for such a study. If 
the author will re-examine his material from this point of view, he might 
arrive at some valuable results. 

T. Ὁ. Goopg.t 


YaLE UNIVERSITY 


Classical Philology 


Vou. ΠΙ . April, 1908 No. 2 


WHEN DID CAESAR WRITE HIS COMMENTARIES 
ON THE CIVIL WAR? 


By W. Warpre Fow.Ler 


As the question stands in this heading, I confess I cannot 
answer it with complete confidence. But I propose to give in this 
short paper a reason, and to me a convincing one, for believing 
that Oaesar’s account of the campaign of Curio in Africa, which 
occupies the last twenty-one chapters of Book ii, could not have 
been written until after his return from his own campaign in that 
province, viz., until after the beginning of June, 468.0. Andif my 
argument has any weight, it will carry with it a presumption that 
the rest of the work was composed at the same time. It was 
Caesar’s habit to go through with anything he had undertaken; 
and that he wrote easily and quickly we know from the testimony 
of his friend Hirtius, in his preface to Book viii of the Com- 
mentaries on the Gallic War. 

When lecturing, as I did for some years, on the history and 
strategy of the civil wars, I used to tell my pupils that in my view 
Caesar could not well have written of Curio’s campaign until he 
had himself been on the ground in the spring of 46. So-far as 
we know he had never been in the African province before that 
year; if he had, it must have been in early life and as a private 
individual. But there is no trace of any such journey, nor any 
known reason why he should have taken it. We may in fact 
assume that he had never been there; and I wish to show that 
[Ciass1oaL PuiLo.oer III, April, 1908] 129 


130 W. WarvE Fow.Ler 


there is more than one passage in the latter part of Book ii 
which could not well have been written by anyone who had not 
been there. I am not aware that this has ever been pointed out, 
and I have never seen a serious attempt to fix the date of the 
writing of these books. Nipperdey long ago (Praef. 4 of his 
_ edition) argued that they could not have been published before 
46, but that is another matter; and his argument, drawn from 
Cicero’s famous eulogy of the Commentaries in his Brutus (writ- 
ten in 46), which, as Nipperdey thinks, could not have included 
those on the Civil War, does not seem to me a very strong one. 

The question is of some historical interest in view of the 
attacks made of recent years in Germany, by O. E. Schmidt and 
other less weighty critics, on the good faith of Caesar in his nar- 
rative of events, especially in Book i. If Caesar did not write 
these books till 46, three years had elapsed since the events nar- 
rated in Book i, and his mind had been fully occupied with other 
matters since then; so that slips of memory would be natural and 
unavoidable. That his memory should sometimes deceive him in 
the way of self-justification was psychologically inevitable; and it 
does not follow that a man who in 46 had nothing to fear from popu- 
lar opinion was deliberately trying to put himself right by telling 
lies which thousands of people then living would know to be such. 
The German critics, as so often in Roman history, have argued 
rather as critics than as students of human nature in activity. 
And the new Italian historian, Ferrero, has gone to such extrava- 
gant lengths in his depreciation both of Caesar’s motives and 
actions, that students and teachers of Caesar should be on their 
guard in reading him. 

But to return to my theme. Let me point out in the first 
place how difficult it is to suppose that Caesar could have found 
leisure to put his story into literary shape at any time during the 
three years following on the outbreak of civil war in January, 49. 
After the Pharsalian campaign he was in Egypt, sore beset until 
the end of March, 47. True, he did not leave Egypt until the 
beginning of July (Fischer, Zeittafeln, p. 283), but when after 
eleven years of continuous hard work he fell a victim to the 
charms of Cleopatra, and with her made an expedition up the 


Wuen Dip Carsak Write His COMMENTARIES? 131 


Nile (App. B. C. 2. 90), it is difficult to believe—though nothing 
indeed seems to have been impossible to Caesar—that he should 
have taken pen in hand for literary work. At the end of that 
year, after his work in the East and Asia Minor, he was in Rome 
for about two months, and must have been extremely busy the 
whole time. But when the African war (December, 47 to June, 
46) was over, he left for Sardinia on June 13 (Bell. Afr. 98), 
was detained by storms, and did not reach Rome till July 26. 
There he stayed till at least November 26, when we hear of him 
in a letter of Cicero (Fam. 6. 14), dated a. p. 5, Kal. intercalares 
priores, which may remind us that between November and Decem- 
ber of that year there were inserted 67 days divided into two 
intercalary months. He was apparently in Spain before January 
1, 45; and we may reckon that he did not stay long in Rome after 
Cicero met him on November 26. But from June 13 to (say) 
the middle of the first intercalary month would be a period of 
about 180 days of comparative leisure. Much indeed was done 
in that time: but Caesar’s time was then more at his own disposal 
than it had been since he first went to Gaul. If I may hazard a 
guess, it would be that enforced leisure during the stormy weather 
which detained him in, or on the coast of, Sardinia was the oppor- 
tunity which he seized for composition. 

Let us now see what was the course of Caesar’s travel in 
Africa, and where it covered the ground of the operations of 
Curio. He sailed past Clupea, on the eastern side of the peninsula 
which stands out toward Sicily, and which was evacuated by the 
Pompeians as soon as Curio appeared on the coast (B. C. 2. 23). 
So far as we know he never was actually there, or at Anquillaria 
where Curio landed. Of these two places he says very little; he 
gives the distance between them accurately, and describes Anquil- 
laria in somewhat general terms: ‘‘habet non incommodam aestate 
stationem, et duobus eminentibus promontoriis continetur” —that 
is all, and it is no doubt what had been told him about a place in 
which he was not greatly interested. We may compare it with 
the brief description of the Rhone Valley at Martigny at the 
beginning of B. G. iii, which he seems never to have visited him- 
self after the narrow escape of Servius Galba there narrated. He 


182 W. WarvrE FowLer 


writes of the valley as lying between steep mountains, with the 
river running through it, just as Galba might have described it 
to him, but without mentioning any other features of the ground, 
e. g., the sudden turn of the Rhone to the northwest, almost at a 
right angle, at this point. | 

Caesar then sailed on to the south of Hadrumetum, and the 
campaign practically bégan and ended there; but after the battle 
of Thapsus he marched direct to Utica, and would come upon the 
footsteps of Curio at about a day’s march from that town. Here 
he stayed apparently some days (Bell. Afr. 89 ff.), then went by 
the valley of the Bagradas to Zama, and when he had done his 
work there returned to Utica and embarked for Sardinia. It is 
here then that we must look for the evidence we want, and here 
indeed we find it. 

He was always deeply interested in the success or failure of 
his subordinates, and while at Utica he must have been continu- 
ally thinking of those fatal blunders of Curio which led to the 
loss of the African province, and to the necessity of a second 
campaign there. It is clear that what particularly attracted his 
attention was the position of the so-called Castra Cornelia, which 
Scipio the Elder had occupied in the Second Punic War. He 
saw its great advantages to an invading and inferior force, and 
approved of Curio’s retreat to this position on the first news of 
the approach of King Juba. ‘‘Castra erant ad bellum ducendum 
aptissima natura loci et munitione et maris propinquitate, et aquae 
et salis copia, cuius magna vis iam ex proximis erat salinis eo con- 
gesta. Non materia multitudine arborum, non frumentum, cuius 
erant plenissimi agri, deficere poterat.” So Curio rightly 
decided to remain there and “ducere bellum;” and it was only 
by yielding to false information and to his own impulsiveness and 
self-confidence, that he abandoned the position and brought him- 
self and his army to destruction (chaps. 36, 37). 

This alone might be strong evidence that Caesar had been on 
the ground and seen with his own eyes the strength of the posi- 
tion, and pondered with keen regret the folly and the ruin of a 
man whom he seems to have loved (see the words he puts into 
Curio’s mouth in 32. 2). But in a previous chapter he had 


Wuen Dip CAESAR Writrt His CoMMENTARIES? 183 


already accurately described this position; and this chapter (24) 
leaves no doubt in my mind that he is describing it from personal 
observation. On his arrival at Utica Curio went himself with a 
cavalry force to survey the Castra Cornelia, 


quod is locus peridoneus castris habebatur. Id autem est iugum 
derectum eminens in mare, utraque ex parte praeruptum atque asperum, 
sed tamen paulo leniore fastigio ab ea parte quae ad Uticam vergit. 
Abest derecto itinere ab Utica paulo amplius passus mille. Sed hoc 
itinere est fons, quo mare succedit longius, lateque is locus restagnat: 
quem si qui vitare voluerit, sex milium circuitu in oppidum pervenit. 


Colonel Stoffel (Guerre civile I, 309), after examining the 
ground himself, pronounced this description to be accurate in 
every point of detail except one;' and Caesar must indeed have 
cross-examined his witnesses importunately if he was writing here 
on information given by survivors from Curio’s army, or others 
who had been there. And the one point on which Caesar is not 
accurate is exactly that one point in the whole scene as to which 
a mistake might easily be made, viz., the distance from the Castra 
to the town of Utica. It is really, says Colonel Stoffel, not one 
mile, but three. But looking over the flat and marshy plain 
between the hill on the east and the town on rising ground to the 
west, the eye might easily be deceived, as it so often is on level 
ground without any break, or in guessing at distance at sea. It 
must be added, as Stoffel suggests, that the reading of the passage 
may be at fault. I see by Mr. Hirzel’s critical note on these 
words, that the sentence “Abest . . . . mille’ is absent in the MS 
known as D (prima manu), which is perhaps the best of all the 
MSS of these books. 

It-is interesting to compare this description, written by a man 
who was deeply interested in the story he was telling and the 
ground he was describing, with another by a historian who had 
not been on the spot. Livy (29. 35), in writing of the use made 
of it by Scipio, merely says “Castra hiberna in promontorio, quod 
tenui iugo continenti adhaerens in aliquantum maris spatium 
extenditur, communit.” There is no picture in these words, such 


1JT,e., as the coast was then. The sea bas now retreated a long way, but the 
‘‘iugum ”’ remains as it was. 


134 W. WarvE Fow.Ler 


as rises in the mind’s eye on reading Caesar’s graphic description, . 
which reminds us of the famous account of the rocky slope at Ilerda 
(Book i. 45), but is even more intelligible to the unassisted reader: 

Caesar, like other ancient writers, is not as a rule careful in 
describing topographical details; they had not what we may call 
the lecturing or explanatory habit. The account of the Castra 
Cornelia is an exception to the rule, not so much, I think, because 
he wished to impress the features of the ground on his readers, as 
because he himself had observed them with such lively and regret- 
ful interest. And I may here remark that I believe it will be 
found on examination that he is more explicit in describing the 
scene of a disaster or peril which he had incurred than that of a 
victory; for example, the nature of the ground at Gergovia is more 
carefully explained than that of any of his Gallic victories, the 
rocky slope at Ilerda, than the country to the west of the Segres 
where the campaign was won, and the operations near Dyrrhachium, 
where he ventured too much and had to regret it, far more clearly 
than the the battlefield of Pharsalus, where, if we had no account 
but his own to help us, we should hardly know within fifty miles 
where the battle took place. 

Then why, it may be asked, has he not given us an accurate 
description of the scene of the catastrophe in the valley of Bagra- 
das (chaps. 38-42) which brought the campaign to such a miser- 
able conclusion? He must have passed over it on his way to 
Zama; but here he has given us no picture. The reason is, I 
take it, that there was no picture to draw. His account makes it 
clear that the ground was all open and level, suited for the operation 
of cavalry, which could proceed even by night without difficulty, 
as we see in chaps. 38. 4 and 39.6. There was no salient feature 
in the landscape, or none at least which had any bearing on the 
result.’ Low hills or rising ground (colles) are mentioned in 42, 
to which the panic-stricken troops finally tried to make their way; 


1A friend who has traveled in the valley of the Mejerda confirms the impression I 
had gained from Caesar as to the nature of the ground. Though the river has changed 
its course near the sea, it is quite clear that it flowed then as it flows now, a few miles 
inland, through a flat alluvial plain, without salient features. Stoffel writes (p. 109) 
of some ‘‘collines’’ which approach the river about ten kilometers from the Castra 
Oornelia, which are no doubt the ‘loca superiora’’ of chap. 40 ad fin., and the 
*Seolles’’ of 42.1. Apart from these there seems to be nothing but the the level plain. 


WHEN Dip Carsak Write His CoMMENTABIES? 135 


but these seem to have been some distance away, for the enemy’s 
cavalry was easily able to prevent this attempt at escape. 

One other point may be mentioned before I leave these reflec- 
tions, set down at the suggestion of Professor F. W. Kelsey, to 
the judgment of critics. Varus, the Pompeian commander at 
Utica, had pitched his camp in a strong position under the walls 
of the town. This position Caesar describes with unusual care, 
perhaps to make it plain that it was impossible to make any seri- 
ous attack on either camp or city, and that the wise course for 
Curio to take, seeing that he had no siege-train, was ‘‘ducere 
bellum” by occupying the Castra Cornelia. He writes as follows 
(chap. 25, inié.): ‘‘Hoc explorato loco Curio castra Vari conspi- 
cit muro oppidoque coniuncta ad portam quae appellatur bellica, 
admodum munita natura loci, una ex parte ipso oppido Utica, 
altera a theatro, quod est ante oppidum, substructionibus erus 
operis maximis, aditu ad castra difficili et angusto.” I think that 
any reader would naturally conclude that these lines were written 
by one who knew Utica well, and not from second-hand informa- 
tion. Such a conclusion is in my view made certain by the men- 
tion of the “substructiones” on which, as it seems, the structure 
of the theatre had to be erected, no doubt on account of the sandy 
nature of the soil. These solid foundations formed a strong flank- 
ing defense for the camp, and made the access to it extremely 
difficult. I can well imagine an informant mentioning the theatre 
to Caesar; but I find it hard to believe that the “substructiones”’ 
would have found their way into his story if he had not seen them 
with his own eyes. | 

It might be argued that in this same book (chaps. 9, 10), 
Caesar has very minutely described the construction of a tower 
and a “musculus” used during the siege of Massilia, which he 
could not have seen himself, as they had been destroyed by the 
Massiliots by fire before he returned from Spain (chap. 14). If 
he could at second hand describe such a complicated piece of 
engineering as the tower (the ‘“‘musculus”’ may be left out of 
account as being neither new nor complicated in the method of its 
construction), why should he not be able to describe also at sec- 
ond hand, the position of the ground before Utica? 


136 W. WarvE Fowler 


To this I would reply: (1) That plans and directions for an 
ingenious bit of engineering, an invention for protecting the 
builders of a tower within range of an ingenious enemy’s power- 
ful missiles, were undoubtedly preserved for future use, and were 
accessible to Caesar at any time; (2) That this tower was solidly 
constructed of brick, not of wood like the rest of the siege machin- 
ery, and that therefore the shell of it at least would probably have 
remained standing until Caesar’s arrival, when the construction 
could be explained to him on the spot by his engineers; (3) That 
a piece of machinery is a very different thing from a strategical 
position. The former can be explained with the help of plans; 
the engineer’s own description may be incorporated in one’s work, 
as was perhaps the case both here and in the account of the Rhine 
bridge. But the description of the Castra Cornelia and the posi- 
tion before Utica is the work of a general, accustomed for many 
years to examine the lie of the ground in military operations: it 
is the pivot on which Caesar’s criticism of Curio’s movements 
turns; and I cannot believe that he would have ventured to criti- 
cise them as he did, even if he had enjoyed the modern advantage 
of photography to help him, without having been himself on the 
spot. 

If then (1) Caesar had never been at Utica before the spring 
of 46, and (2) if we have convincing indications in these chapters 
that he had been on the spot when he wrote them, we get a termi- 
mus ex quo for the composition of the second half of Book ii of 
the Cil War, and a strong presumption that the whole work was 
written after the campaign of Thapsus. As I have already said, 
the most natural and convenient time for their composition would 
be immediately after he left Africa (June 13), or any time between 
that date and the end of the following November. 


LIncoLN COLLEGE, OxFORD 


THE εἰ γάρ WISHES 
By GENEVA MISENER 


Three formulae for introducing wishes, et, εἴθε, and εἰ γάρ, are 
usually given in every discussion of the Greek wish-optative, but 
no attempt has been made to distinguish meaning or usage except 
in a few special treatises on particles where some explanations of 
the γάρ in the εἰ yap formula have been suggested. The defini- 
tion of the force of the particle offered by Hoogeveen, who is one 
of the earliest authors of such treatises, is in part incorrect and 
in part inadequate; γάρ causam significat optandi, vel ad prae- 
cedentem orationem pertinet: Schutz (ed. Hoog.) develops the 
latter part of the definition by giving some examples in which he 
has rightly discerned the meaning of ydp. His investigation, 
however, was not thorough enough to justify any general theory. 

After the above-named scholars we find an entirely new method 
introduced by Baumlein and his adherents, who would interpret 
γάρ in the light of the etymology (γε and dpa), and make the γάρ 
in wish a relic of an original asseverative yap. Thus the distinc- 
tion between the wish formula with γάρ and that without γάρ is 
one of emphasis. Plausible as such an hypothesis may seem in 
explanation of some of the later instances of yap in wish, more is 
required for its proof than the citation of a few examples where 
the ydp may be disregarded in translation. The logical relation of 
the wish sentence to the context must be analyzed and shown to be 
neither the causal nor derivative from the causal. For this analysis 
the testimony of the earlier authors should have most weight as 
most likely to exemplify the earliest usage of words uncorrupted 
by later influences. Finally, as collateral proof, indisputable evi- 
dence of the original asseverative ydp in other classes of sentences 
should be sought. The possibility of obtaining such evidence I 
have discussed in a previous paper, where I have pointed out that 
in the other important fields claimed for asseverative ydp traces of 
an original causal force can always be found. The present article 
will be confined to an analysis of the wish sentence alone. 
(CuassicaL Paro.oey III, April, 1908) 137 


138 GENEVA MISENER 


As a preliminary to the discussion proper I may recall to the 
reader a few general facts about the character of wishes. First, 
as the most evident, the wish belongs to dialogue, i. e., to collo- 
quial speech, and is subject to the various influences operative in 
this field. By its very nature, moreover, it is likely to be occa- 
sioned by deep feeling and to be couched in emotional language 
which tends to omit links in reasoning and leave them to be 
suggested by the tone and import of the thought articulately 
expressed. Finally, we must remember that the motive of the 
wish clause is not always to declare an actual desire, but as often 
to attest a feeling or attitude bearing on the preceding or follow- 
ing thought. 

In analyzing wishes in Homer, where the majority of the 
instances occur, an initial difficulty is encountered in distinguish- 
ing the conditional wish sentences from the stereotyped condi- 
tions. The e yap sentences with the past indicative are the most 
perplexing. Ameis, who has treated the question at some length 
in his edition of Homer, would make them conditional wishes 
because he believes that in no other way can the ydp be explained. 
Such a solution begs the question. Whether the sentence be 
considered a wish plus a conclusion, or a conditional protasis and 
apodosis, the yap in either case must be explained in the same 
way, since it introduces the whole sentence and not the εἰ clause. 
In this paper, then, I shall include all εἰ ydp’s that might in any 
way be classified as wishes, disregarding the question of their 
grammatical relation to their conclusion or apodosis, whichever it 
may be called. 

The purely causal and explanatory meanings of γάρ are 
naturally not found in wishes, as emotional speech is not given 
to formal reasoning, and the wish which is of an attesting or 
asseverative character is more suited to confirming or motivating 
some expression of feeling—approval, objection, or the like. 
Moreover, in this subtle sphere of the emotions, we may expect 
great variety of logical relations passing from the direct and 
evident to the elusive and vaguely suggested. 

Among the more easily discerned are the confirming εἰ γάρ 
sentences in which an assertion—promise or threat it may be— 


THE εἰ γάρ WISHES 139 


is supported by a wish that something dear to the heart of the 
speaker, though often unrealizable, might as surely happen, e. g. 
11. xviii. 464. θάρσει" 

μή τοι ταῦτα μετὰ φρεσὶ σῇσι μελόντων. 

αἷ γάρ μιν θανάτοιο δυσηχέος ὧδε δυναίμην 

νόσφιν ἀποκρύψαι, ὅτε μιν μόρος αἰνὸς ἱκάνοι, 

ὥς οἱ τεύχεα καλὰ παρέσσεται, οἷά τις αὖτε 

ἀνθρώπων πολέων θαυμάσσεται;, ὅς κεν ἴδηται. 
yap does not introduce the wish idea alone; in fact, the wish is 
subordinate in thought to the clause ds of ...... παρέσσεται. 
Hephaestus has in mind, not the fulfilment of his wish, for which 
he cannot hope, but the confirming of his encouraging words to 
Thetis by assuring her that he wishes he might be as certain of 
rescuing Achilles from death as he is of the forthcoming of the arms. 

An ἐπεὶ clause serves a like purpose in Demosth. xix. 172: 

ἰδίᾳ δ᾽, ἐξομοσάμενον, ovr’ αὖ καλὸν ovr’ ἀσφαλὲς ἦν ἐκεῖσε πλανᾶσθαι" ἐπεὶ 
εἰ μὴ διὰ τὸ τούτους βούλεσθαι σῶσαι, ἐξώλης ἀπολοίμην καὶ προώλης εἰ προσλα- 
βών γ᾽ ἂν ἀργύριον πάνυ πολύ, μετὰ τούτων ἐπρέσβευσα. Since except for 
wishing to save these, may I perish utterly if I would have taken any 
amount of money and gone on the embassy with them. 

The logical bond is not always, it must be admitted, so distinct 
in wishes at the beginning of a speech—a tendency shown also 
in questions and other forms of sentences in the same position. 
In such instances the attitude toward the speaker’ preceding must 
frequently be inferred from an exclamation of scorn or surprise, 
or even less directly from the tone of the yap clause itself. The 
former is illustrated in JI. xiii. 825, where Hector answers the 
taunts and threats of Ajax by an exclamation of disbelief and 
scorn which he proceeds to substantiate by the yap clause: Alay 
ἁμαρτοεπές, βουγαίε, ποῖον ἔειπες" | εἰ yap ἐγὼν οὕτω γε Διὸς παῖς 
αὐγιόχοιο | εἴην nuata πάντα . . .. ὡς νῦν ἡμέρη oe κακὸν φέρει 
᾿Αργείοισιν ....* The thought is practically this: “Ajax, you 

1Cf. Od. xv. 156 (a promise), xviii. 235 (assertion), xxi. 372 (assertion); Jl. xxii. 
846 (resolve), viii. 538 (prediction). Od. iii. 218 confirms the hope suggested in the 
question by a real wish with a ὡς clause containing the important thought, as is 
shown by the speech of Telemachus and Athena’s answer which follow. When the 


wish is repeated, |. 223, it is introduced by a simple εἰ, proving that the γάρ belongs 
to the whole period and not to the first wish alone. 


2Cf. Meaning of γάρ, p. 87. 8Of. Od. ix. 623, xvii. 251. 


140 GENEVA MISENER 


are talking idly, for we (and not you) shall surely (I wish I might 
be as certainly the son of Zeus) conquer today.” 

The wish in all these instances is not complete without the 
determinative clause with ws. ‘yap introduces not the wish alone 
but the whole sentence, which is purely asseverative. The nature 
of the reply in Od. ix. 523 is indicated only by the content of 
the wish sentence, but the ydp clause has the same function as in 
the above (520): αὐτὸς δ᾽ ai x’ ἐθέλῃσι, ἰήσεται, οὐδέ τις ἄλλος | 
«νος Os ἔφατ᾽, αὐτὰρ ἐγώ μεν ἀμειβόμενος προσέειπον, | ai γὰρ δὴ 
ψυχῆς τε καὶ αἰῶνός σε δυναίμην | εὖνιν ποιήσας πέμψαι δόμον" Αἰδος 
εἴσω | ὡς οὐκ ὀφθαλμόν γ᾽ ἰήσεται οὐδ᾽ ᾿Ενοσίχθων. A rough trans- 
lation would be, “Nay, not so, for surely (I would I could as 
surely send you to Hades) not even Poseidon will heal your eye.” 
The weight of the confirmation here rests on the conclusion, while 
the γάρ clause merely emphasizes the certainty of the speaker. 
The process is, however, at times reversed. The wish may bear the 
more important part in confirming, and the conclusion which may 
follow or not, strengthen the wish by deducing the results there- 
from. Although the two clauses are not as closely connected as in the 
former cases, they are, still, both logically introduced by the yap. 
E. g. Il. ii. 871: τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη κρείων ᾿Αγαμέμνων. | 
“ἢ μὰν αὖτ᾽ ἀγορῇ νικᾷς, γέρον, υἷας ᾿Αχαιῶν. | al γάρ, Zed τε πάτερ 
καὶ ᾿Αθηναίη καὶ ΓΑπολλον, | τοιοῦτοι δέκα μοι συμφράδμονες elev 
᾿Αχαιῶν, | τῷ κε τάχ᾽ ἡμύσειε πόλις ΤΙριάμοιο ἄνακτος... . Aga- 
memnon assures Nestor of the sincerity of his praise thus: “For 
I would I might have ten like you; then would Troy surely fall.” 

As in the other confirmatory wishes, it is not always necessary 
that the assent be given in so many words, for the wish is in itself 
an indisputable indication of the attitude which it confirms. 
Odysseus, for instance, in Od. xxi. 200, needs no other assur- 
ance of the loyalty which he asks of Eumaeus than the wish of 
the swineherd that Odysseus might return and give him an oppor- 
tunity to prove himself: Zed πάτερ, at yap τοῦτο τελευτήσειας 
ἐέλδωρ, | ws ἔλθοι μὲν κεῖνος ἀνὴρ, ἀγάγοι δέ ἑ δαίμων" | γνοίης x’ 
οἵη ἐμὴ δύναμις καὶ χεῖρες ὅπονται.ἦ 

10f. Od. xxi. 402. 


Cf. Od. xv. 545 (assent), vill. 333 (assent), xix. 22, xxiv. 376, xx. 169, xviii. 866; 
Aesch. Prom. 152; Xen. Oyr. xi. 1. 88. 


THE εἰ γάρ WISHES 141 


This use of γάρ in confirming direct assent is extended to 
replies where there is only approval or acceptance of a previous 
speaker’s prediction or assertion, e. g. Od. xvii. 496. Penelope 
(494) says, ᾿Αιθ᾽ οὕτως αὐτόν σε βάλοι κλυτότοξος ᾿Απόλλων, and 
Eurynome answers: τὴν δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ Εὐρυνόμη ταμίη πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν" | 
Ei γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἀρῆσιν τέλος ἡμετέρῃσι γένοιτο" οὐκ ἄν τις τούτων γε 
ἐύθρονον ἠῶ ἵκοιτο A comparison of the wish’ of the house- 
keeper (496) with that of Penelope (494) which is introduced by 
aif’ proves without doubt that the distinction made in the for- 
mulae results from the difference in the relations which the wishes 
bear to the preceding narrative. The first is a simple wish 
devoutly desired, an outburst of indignation at what she has seen, 
not an answer to a previous speech. The second is a conditional 
wish clause expressing, through the wish and its conclusion, an 
assurance of the speaker’s sympathy with the words of Penelope. 

In regard to a similar wish with yap in Herodotus i. 27, 
Broschman (p. 9) remarks that, although Herodotus did not 
think of the origin of the formula, a causal relation can still be 
traced for the yap—to quote—quamquam si plena esset oratio 
et ante optationem comprobandi vel exsultandi notionem quandam 
exspectaremus ad quam yap referretur, et post optationem quae 
deest apodosin. 

The passage in question is: Κροῖσον δὲ ἐλπίσαντα λόγειν ἐκεῖνον 
ἀληθέα εἰπεῖν: Αἱ γὰρ τοῦτο θεοὶ ποιήσειαν ἐπὶ νοῦν νησιώτῃσι, 
ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ Λυδῶν παῖδας σὺν ἵπποισι. The wish clause confirms 
Croesus’ approval of the good news brought by the other speaker, 
whether we believe that this feeling was betrayed by a gesture or 
look, or was simply to be inferred from the tone of the ydp sen- 
tence. That Herodotus did not use the ydp with a consciousness 
of its evident force cannot be taken for granted until instances of 
a similar wish without γάρ have been found, proving that αἱ γάρ, 
αἴθε, and αἴ were interchangeable formulae at that time. The 
retention of the γὰρ force in writers following Herodotus’ lends 
probability to the opposite theory, since as soon as the meaning 


10f. Od. xvii. 513, xx. 236. 


2Cf. Arist. Peace 346; Eur. Elect. 663, Ion. 410, Orest. 1209, Suppl. 1145. The γάρ in 
the wish Pindar Pyth. i. 46 is a narrative γάρ introducing the praise which Pindar stated 
he is about to give. It cannot then be counted as an instance of the wish formula. 


142 GENEVA MISENER 


of εἰ yap became indistinguishable from the simple εἰ, as was its 
tendency later in replies, the latter formula supplanted the former. 

It may be well at this point to call attention to the infrequency 
of yap in wishes after Homer, although the apparent decrease is 
in part. due to a difference in interpretation resulting from the 
further development of the εἰ clause. All the conditions’ which 
still have in Homer the wish form became in classical Greek 
clearly recognized conditions, and the εἰ yap can consequently be 
no longer claimed as wish formula. There is, however, a real 
decline in the use, and the reason is to be found in the vagueness 
of the ydp in the wish formulae of assent and approval and their 
opposites, where the εἰ clause performed its function almost as 
completely without the γάρ as with. The subtle link of reasoning 
indicated by γάρ was more and more disregarded until the simple 
form almost completely supplanted the fuller. This last stage is 
not reached until late in classical times, although instances occur 
even in Homer where the two forms of replies are so similar in 
content that the force of the γάρ might be easily overlooked. 
E. g., Od. xix. 809: at γὰρ τοῦτο, ξεῖνε, ἔπος τετελεσμένον εἴη" | 
τῷ κε τάχα γνοίης φιλότητά τε πολλά τε δῶρα. .. . and Od. 
vii. 881: εὐχόμενος δ᾽ ἄρα εἶπεν ἔπος 7 ἔφατ᾽ .. .. Ζεῦ πάτερ, 
aif’ ὅσα εἶπε τελευτήσειεν ἅπαντα | ᾿Αλκίνοος" τοῦ μέν κεν ἐπὶ ζειδω- 
pov ἄρουραν ἄσβεστον κλέος εἴη, ἐγὼ δέ κε πατρίδ᾽ ἱκοίμην. In 
the first Penelope confirms her gratitude—expressed probably by 
gesture or tone—for the kindly intention of the stranger in pre- 
dicting Odysseus’ return by wishing that his words may come 
true, which she, however, doubts, and by promising the stranger 
a reward if this should be the outcome. In the second the thought 
uppermost is that of independent prayer, as is shown by the formal 
invocation and by εὐχόμενος. It is inspired by and in accord 
with what Alcinous said, but its primary purpose is to reveal 
Odysseus’ eagerness for the fulfilment of the promise of the king. 
Up to this point only confirmative wish sentences have been dis- 
cussed; but there is no lack of evidence of the conscious use of 


1Cf. Eur. Alc. 91, 1072; Theocrit. xvi. 82; Eur. Rhes. 464. 

2Cf. Od. xv. 536, xx. 236, xvii. 163; Eur. Cyclops. 261 éyw; κακῶς γὰρ ἐξόλοιο Must 
be classified with the confirming wishes, though different from the preceding examples 
where the feeling is favorable. Here the imprecation substantiates the indignation 
voiced in the ἐγώ. by a more emphatic expression of it. 


THE εἰ γάρ WISHES 148 


yap in wishes, as in other forms of sentences, to motivate, also, or 
to justify, a feeling or an attitude. E. g.,' Jl. vii. 182 (124): 
(124) ὦ πόποι, ἦ μέγα πένθος ᾿Αχαιίδα γαῖαν ἱκάνει, ] ἦ κε μέγ᾽ 
οἰμώξειε γέρων. . .. (129) εἰ πτώσσοντας ὑφ᾽ Ἕκτορι πάντας 
ἀκούσαι ] . ... αἷ γὰρ Zed... . ἡβῶμ᾽ ὡς ὅτ᾽ .. .. (157) εἶθ᾽ 
ὡς ἡβώοιμι, βίη δέ μοι ἔμπεδος εἴη" | τῷ κε τάχ᾽ ἀντήσειε μάχης 
κοριθαίολος “Ἕκτωρ. The train of reasoning might be thus ex- 
pressed: “Verily, you are disgracing Greece by thus crouching 
before Hector (and I rightly censure you, i. e., I am not censuring 
you for not fighting, while I myself at the same time would not 
fight), for would that I might be (or, if I might only be) as 
young and strong as I was once, then would Hector not lack an 
opponent.” ‘ydp introduces the whole series of sentences and 
includes the resumption of the wish, 1. 157, where the speaker 
consequently uses only εἴθ᾽, and not εἰ γάρ, as in the first. 

The absence of ydp in a conditional wish of like content, Od. 
xiv. 468, can be readily explained: ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ πρῶτον ay 
éxparyov, οὐκ ἐπικεύσω | εἴθ᾽ ds ἡβώοιμι βίη τε μοι ἔμπεδος εἴη | ὡς 
ὅθ᾽ ὑπὸ Τροίην. .. . (No conclusion follows.) Unlike the wish 
introduced by εἰ γάρ, it is without any close logical or grammatical 
connection with the previous words, but is a simple exclamation 
not developed beyond the bare expression of the feigned wish 
that serves by analogy to convey a hint to the hearers of that 
which is really desired. Hayman* says a suppressed apodosis 
may be supplied as easily here as in Od. xix. 22 or Od. xx. 169, 
where εἰ γάρ is read. But it is not on this basis that the distinc- 
tion between the two. formulae must be drawn. γάρ is a causal 
particle which shows the relation between main clauses and is not 
concerned with the connection between the main sentence to 
which it belongs and subordinate clauses. 

In motivating by anticipation a following sentence, a somewhat 
unusual use of the wish with yap developed in Homer, yap paves 
the way for an objection to a previous speaker’s suggestion, or for 


1Of. Meaning of γάρ, pp. 18, 31, 43. 

2Cf. Il. xvi. 722 without γάρ where the content of the wish clause is similar, but 
there is no strong feeling expressed for the wish to motivate. Cf. also Od. xvi. 99; 7]. 
xvii. 156, Od. iv. 782; Aesch. Choeph. 345 (justification of grief), Suppl. 867; Od. xvi. 
148 (justification of refusal to follow the suggestion of another —a conditional wish). , 

8 Edit. of Od. 


144 GENEVA MISENER 


the disappointment of the wishes or expectations of the hearers, 
by introducing an assurance of good wishes and sympathy for 
those whose hopes are to be disappointed, e. g., Od. iii. 205: καὶ 
λίην κεῖνος μὲν érlaato .... at γὰρ ἐμοὶ τοσσήνδε θεοὶ δύναμιν 
περιθεῖεν | τίσασθαι μνηστῆρας... . ἀλλ᾽ οὔ μοι τοιοῦτον ἐπέκλω- 
σαν θεοὶ ὄλβον. Telemachus assents to Nestor’s praise of Orestes, 
but distrusts his ability to follow Orestes’ example. Before, how- 
ever, he rejects Nestor’s advice he apologizes for his seeming 
inertia by assuring him that there is no lack of desire on his part 
if the gods would but grant him the power. An ἐπεὶ wish clause, 
Plat. Prot. 8335 C, performs the same function as the γάρ wish 
above, but follows, instead of preceding, the objection: ἐγὼ δὲ ra 
μακρὰ ταῦτα ἀδύνατος, ἐπεὶ ἐβουλόμην ἂν olds τι εἶναι. The readi- 
ness of will expressed in the ἐπεί clause softens the refusal and, at 
the same time, moderates the use of the word ἀδύνατος. A still 
nearer parallel to the ἐπεί sentence is found in another wish, 
Arist. Eccles. 380, where the thought is virtually equivalent to 
ἐπεί ἐβουλόμην ἄν. .. . ΒΔΕ. τὸ τριώβολον δῆτ᾽ ἔλαβες; XPE. 
εἰ γὰρ ὥφελον" ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερος νῦν ἦλθον, ὥστ᾽ αἰσχύνομαι. . .. 
The ἀλλά that usually accompanies the γάρ points to a close rela- 
tion in function to the ἀλλὰ yap introducing objections in other 
forms of sentences.’ 

This apologetic use of ydp throws some light on an obscure 
γάρ in Aesch. Agam. 217: τί τῶν δ᾽ ἄνευ κακῶν; | πῶς λιπόναυς 
γένωμαι συμμαχίας ἁμαρτών; | παυσανέμου γὰρ θυσίας | παρθενίου 
θ᾽ αἵματος op | γᾷ περιοργῶς ἐπιθυμεῖν | θέμις. ed γὰρ εἴη. The 
wish is at once a modification and justification of the reluctant 
acquiescence indicated by the clause ending with θέμις. It is this 
last word which inspires the eb. Agamemnon cannot quite con- 
vince himself that the sacrifice is θέμις, but his hope that it may 
be for the best prompts him to utter the wish justifying the virtual 
consent which he had given. The consequences will vindicate 
the deed. As the other instances quoted above apologize for an 
objection, this may be said to apologize for acquiescence. 

BERLIN, October 25, 1907 


10f. Od. iv. 197; Il. iv. 189, x. 536, xiii. 485, xvii. 561, xxii. 454; Arist. Hcecles. 380; 
Plato Crito 44 D, Rep. 432 Ο. 
2Of. Meaning of γάρ. p. 66. 


THE MISSION OF AGRIPPA TO THE ORIENT 
IN 23 B.C. 


By Davip Maar, JR. 


Of all the idle rumors which attached themselves to illustrious 
men of Rome, and which have been carefully recorded by the 
historians of antiquity, none perhaps has been more generally 
and unhesitatingly accredited in modern times than that which 
was occasioned by the departure of Marcus Agrippa for the Orient 
in 23 B. 0. Agrippa, who was then in his fortieth year,’ had 
been for over twenty years the close friend and associate of 
Augustus. He had fought for him at Perusia,’ at Naulochus,’ and | 
at Actium.‘ He had quelled revolts of the Gauls*® and the Dal- 
matians.° He had been his colleague in the consulship,’ had held 
with him the censorial power,® had in his absence given Julia in. 
marriage to Marcellus,’ and, last of all, had received the surest 
- token of his confidence and esteem in the gift of his signet ring, 
when the Princeps lay on what he thought would prove his death- 
bed.” Then he departed suddenly for the East, and men said in 
Rome that the cause of his journey was his dislike and jealousy 
of Marcellus, then nineteen years old and holding his first public 
office, the curule aedileship.” 

The earliest version of the story is found in the history of 
Velleius Paterculus,” and reads as follows: post cuius (Marcell) 
obitum Agrippa, qui sub specie ministertorum principalium pro- 
fectus in Asiam, ut fama loquitur, ob tacitas cum Marcello offen- 
siones praesenti se subduxerat tempori, reversus inde filiam 
Caesaris Iuliam .... duxit uxorem. It was then officially given 
out that Agrippa went to Asia on business for the Princeps, but 


1 He died (in 12 8. c.) in his fifty-first year: Plin. N. H. vii. 46. 


2 Appian. B. C. v. 31-33, 35. SLiv. Per. 129; Appian. B. C. v. 116-21. 
4Vell. Pat. ii. 85; Diol. 14. . 5 Dio xlviii. 49. 6 Dio xlix. 38. ; 
7In 28 Β. co. 8 Mon. Ane. ii. 2. 9 Dio 1111. 27. 10 Dio lili. 30, 31. 


11 He died (in 23 8. c.) in his twentieth year: Propert. ifi (iv). 18. 15. 
134i, 98. 2. 
(CuassroaL ParLo.oey IIT, April, 1908) 145 


146 Davip Maaig, JR. 


rumor had it that he withdrew as a result of a quarrel with the 
nephew of Augustus. And it was as a voluntary withdrawal that 
this journey was known to the writers of the early second century, 
to Tacitus,’ and to Suetonius, that prince of gossips, who attributes 
it in one place’ to pique on Agrippa’s part due to the feeling that 
Marcellus was given precedence over him, and in another’ to his 
desire not to stand in the young man’s way in his advancement 
in public life. Thus there is a slight inconsistency in the details 
of the story as known to Suetonius, but great is the difference 
between this version of a voluntary withdrawal, and the more mali- 
cious report of an enforced retirement’ known to Pliny the Elder‘ 
and Cassius Dio.° The former, in a passage containing a long 
list of disappointments and disasters suffered by Augustus, many 
of which, untrue or maliciously interpreted, seem to have been 
drawn from hostile political pamphlets, includes the pudenda 
Agrippae ablegatio, while the later historian tells us in all serious- 
ness that Augustus, seeing that Marcellus was not on friendly 
terms with Agrippa, and fearing that angry words and a quarrel 
might arise between his nephew and his old friend, immediately 
sent the latter to Syria. Dio adds, moreover, that Agrippa 
departed at once, but did not proceed to Syria, sending only his 
legates thither, and tarrying himself at Lesbos. . 

This then is the explanation, inconsistent, ill-founded and 
incredible, of the mysterious mission to the East of Augustus’ 
ablest general and closest associate, which was bruited about in 
Rome, snatched at with avidity by all those whose taste for such 
rare morsels of gossip had been diligently cultivated, and has been 
repeated without question by our latter-day historians, whether, 
like Gardthausen,°® they would have us believe that Augustus sent 
his right-hand man into retirement to put an end to the bickerings 
between him and the youthful Marcellus, or, like Ferrero,’ they 
accept the other version, and, believing that Agrippa withdrew 
from motives of personal pique, draw an elaborate picture of the 


1 Ann. xiv. 53, where Seneca, urging Nero to allow him to retire, is made to plead 
as a precedent the Mytilenense secretum of Agrippa. 

3 Aug. 66. 8 Tib. 10. 4N. H. vii. 149. 6 lili, 82, 

6 Augustus u. seine Zeit I, pp. 732, 733. 

1 Grandezza e Decadenza di Roma IV, p. 172. 


THE MIssion OF AGRIPPA TO THE ORIENT 147 


mighty general sulking in Lesbos, like Achilles in his tent, while 
Syria was left ungoverned. 

The story is inconsistent in detail, and its authority is poor. 
Expressly characterized by Velleius as a mere rumor, it is men- 
tioned by Suetonius only to exemplify the chief fault of Agrippa, 
or to cite a precedent for Tiberius’ retirement to Rhodes, while 
Tacitus knows only of the fact that Agrippa withdrew for a season 
to Mytilene. Pliny evidently drew from sources hostile to 
Augustus, whose enemies would not be slow to make capital out 
of such a story, and Dio, writing nearly two hundred and fifty 
years afterward, might easily have been misled by the prevailing 
rumors, especially if the true reason for this secret mission had 
never been made public. 

Nor is it credible that the careful and far-seeing Augustus at 
a critical time in his principate sent his ablest associate into 
banishment, honorable though it might have purported to be, 
merely because he feared a quarrel between him and his boyish 
nephew, or that Agrippa, the hero of so many wars, who had 
refused a triumph,’ and had twice been consul, was piqued because 
the young man had been admitted to the aedileship, and the 
pontificate, and had received from the Senate permission to stand 
for the consulship ten years before the legal age.’ These explana- 
tions of his departure would seem questionable, were they backed 
by the best authorities. As it is, they are worthy of no man’s 
belief. 

That Agrippa’s mission was a real one we know from Josephus, 
who, ignorant of the gossip of Rome, but well acquainted with 
the history and politics of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, 
says nothing of any quarrel between Marcellus and Agrippa, but 
records expressly* that the latter was sent to the Orient as the 
διάδοχος Καίσαρι τὼν πέραν τοῦ *lovfov. And this was no orna- 
mental title, nor was Agrippa a mere imperial legate of one or 
more eastern provinces, but, as Mommsen has shown,‘ the collega 
minor of Augustus, vested with proconsular power extending over 


1Dio xviii. 49. 3 Dio lili. 28. 
8 Ant. Iud. xv. 10. 2. 
4 Res gestae divi Aug.’, pp. 168-65; Rom. Staatsrecht 118, Ὁ. 1151, n. 5. 


148 | Davip Macaig, JR. 


the whole empire, and subordinate only to the Princeps.' But 
Agrippa, Josephus adds, proceeded no farther than Mytilene, 
where he wintered, receiving there with much cordiality King 
Herod the Great, who journeyed thither for the express purpose 
of meeting him, and afterward cementing the friendship thus 
formed by sending to the Jewish king unanswered and in chains 
some Gadarenes who had come to Mytilene to prefer charges 
against him. 

But why did Augustus thus send his right-hand man to be his 
vicegerent in the Orient, and why did the usually energetic 
Agrippa, apparently leaving his mission’ unfulfilled, linger at 
Mytilene, and so lend color to the rumor of an ablegatio? 

Grief and rage at the capture by the Parthians of the ‘‘spoils and 
standards of three Roman armies,”* had long rankled in the minds 
of all patriotic Romans, and ever since the battle of Actium and the 
apparently secure establishment of Augustus’ power, there had 
been a general expectation that this new hero, the conqueror of 
the loathed Egyptian queen, would take vengeance on those hated 
enemies, and restore Roman prestige in the East.’ But the 
Princeps had been in no position to carry on an extensive war 
with those formidable barbarians to whom Crassus and Antony 
had succumbed. His power was too insecure to risk a campaign 
across the seas with possible, even probable, defeat as its result— 
a defeat which would be fatal to all his aspirations—and there 
was also a more pressing demand at home, for the empty treasury 
must be filled. And so the expedition against the Cantabrians 
and Asturians was undertaken‘ in the hope of filling the public 
coffers with the gold of the Spanish mines,’ while an invasion of 
Britain was hinted at,° that men’s desire for the winning of the 
laurels of war might be satisfied. But the troops in Spain, even 
under the leadership of Augustus himself, achieved but slight 
success,’ and after the return of the Princeps to Rome in 24 the 


1This same power he afterward held as regent of Rome in 21 B. c. (Dio liv. 6), and 
as general commander of the West in 20 8. c. (Dio liv. 11). 
3 Mon. Anc. v. 40, 41. 


8Of. Hor. Sat. ii. δ. 62; C. i. 2. 22, 51; 12, 53, 54; 35. 31, 40; iii. 5. Verg. Aen. vi. 
794; vii. 605 (perhaps written after 20 B.c.). 


4In 26 B.c. 5 Ferrero op. cit. IV, p. 28, n. 1. 6 Dio liii. 22. 7 Dio lili. 25. 


THE MISSION OF AGRIPPA TO THE ORIENT 149 


unconquerable Spaniards revolted anew.’ Nor did the expedition 
sent under Aelius Gallus to Arabia for the purpose of seizing the 
long-accumulated treasures of the Sabaeans accomplish greater 
results.” The time seemed critical, and it needed more than 
liberal largesses to the people’ to enable the emperor to hold his - 
own against the malcontents. Discouraged by his illness early in 
23, or, more probably, making use of an old ruse to strengthen 
his position,‘ he announced his intention of resigning his extraor- 
dinary powers’—a resignation impossible with an aristocracy 
indifferent to the common weal and eager for the lucrative posi- 
tions and for the gifts or advantageous leases of lands, by which 
the shrewd Augustus was binding them to his cause, and with a 
plebs mindful of recent donatives and hopeful for more. Thus 
all united to persuade the Princeps to continue to watch over the 
state. But the sudden popularity thus arising would not last of 
itself, nor would the games given with unwonted magnificence in 
the name of Marcellus® satisfy the Roman’s desire for great and 
glorious achievements. The Parthians still held the standards of 
Crassus and Antony, and until, by the recovery of these, national 
disgrace should be removed and national honor retrieved, the 
position of the Princeps would remain insecure. 

But it appeared that the Fortune of the Roman people had 
afforded a safer and surer way of effecting this greatly desired 
triumph than the invasion of Parthia by the insufficient force of 
40,000 men constituting the Syrian Army. Two years before,’ 
Tiridates, whom a revolution had placed upon the Parthian throne, 
and who had been expelled therefrom by the rightful king 
Phraates with the help of the Scythians, had come to Augustus 
in the hope of enlisting his sympathy and help in his cause, 
bringing with him as a valuable hostage the youngest son of his 
rival, whom amid the general confusion he had managed to 
abduct.’ Here lay the opportunity, which Augustus, as soon as 


1 Dio lili. 29. 2 Dio lili. 29. 

δ Mon. Ane. ili. 9; Dio lili. 28. 4Ferrero IV, pp. 165 ff. 

5 Suet. Aug. 28 and Ferrero IV, p. 164, ἢ. 1. 

6Plin. N. H. xix. 24; Dio liii. 31. 7 Augustus was at the time in Spain. 


δ Tustin. xlii. 5.6; cf. Dio li. 18. 


150 Davip MaaIig, JR. 


there was quiet in Spain, and he had strengthened his hold upon 
his power by offering to resign it, was not slow to seize. Was 
not the Great King’s own son worth more to him than some 
standards captured by his predecessors? At any rate, the attempt 


. to find out should be made. But the offer could not come from 


Rome, lest national vanity should be wounded, nor could Augustus 
seem to be ready to buy his success. Some one must quietly 
suggest to the Parthian monarch that by offering acceptable terms 
he could secure his son, and the man obviously best qualified 
to negotiate the bargain was he who stood next to the Princeps. 
Was not this then the reason why Agrippa went to the Orient as 
the vicegerent of Augustus, and this the object of his mission? 
In Rome men wondered why he set forth, vested with extraordinary 
powers, and provided with legates, and they hinted at a rupture 
between the emperor and his friend and at an honorable dismissal 
of the latter. But Agrippa, with his record of victory and tri- 
umph, was willing to let the gossips talk, and to allow the real 
reason for his departure to remain a secret, as it must, were not 
the dignity of Augustus to suffer. And his actions in the East 
seemed to confirm the rumors, for he lay inactive in the pleasant 
town of Mytilene, while only his legates went to Syria'—and 
thence to Parthia. But Lesbos was a convenient place in which 
he might await the return of these legates, and whence he might 
conduct further negotiations with the Great King. It was but a 
short trip across the strait to the terminus of the great road which 
ran up the valley of the Hermus, and thence through Phrygia, 
Lycaonia, and Cilicia to Zeugma, Carrhae and Ctesiphon,’ and 
while Antioch might have seemed more convenient for communi- 
cations with Phraates, the purpose of his mission could hardly 
have been concealed, had messengers kept coming and going 
between the Parthian king and the Roman governor residing in 
the Syrian capital. Also at either Tarsus or Ephesus there would 
have been danger of publicity. Furthermore, if Agrippa was 


1 Dio 11}. 32. 

2The distance by this route from Sardes to Ctesiphon is approximately 1,200 
(Roman) miles, and could readily be covered in three weeks. The government post 
averaged 120 miles per day (Friedlander 3. G. 1156, p. 22), but the envoys would hardly 
travel so fast. 


THE MISSION OF AGRIPPA TO THE ORIENT 151 


willing to conceal the object of his journey under the cover of a 
retirement from court, Mytilene, where illustrious Romans had ere 
this lived in exile,’ would seem a natural place in which to spend 
the years of an ablegatio, and was, moreover, a charming spot’ in 
which to tarry until the transaction should be completed. How 
much negotiating was necessary to persuade Phraates to send an 
embassy to Rome and to offer to submit to the form of a surrender in 
order to recover his kidnapped son, we do not know, but the efforts 
of Agrippa were finally successful, for in the late summer or the 
early autumn of 23,’ envoys from the Great King arrived in Rome 
asking for the surrender of Tiridates and the return of the young 
prince.‘ Augustus refused to deliver Tiridates to his rival—he 
might yet prove serviceable, and his promises to make Parthia a 
vassal-state of Rome might still be made use of, should Phraates 
fail to deliver the standards— but he graciously consented to give 
up the prince upon the condition that the standards and captive 
soldiers of the armies of Crassus and Antony should be returned.° 
Thus the great triumph was achieved without loss of blood or 
honor, and the man who had been instrumental in bringing it 
to pass stayed on in Mytilene, quietly watching over the interests 
of the eastern provinces, securing for the government of Augustus 
the friendship and support of the Jewish king,’ and in general 
preparing the way for the projected journey of the Princeps 
through the Orient. For the Emperor himself was to go to the 
Euphrates to receive the submission of the Parthian monarch,’ 
and in connection with it to make an elaborate tour of inspection 
through all the provinces of the East. But before he could leave 
the West, his colleague must return to take his place, and so in the 
1E, g., P. Rutilius Rufus; Oic. Pro Rab. Post. 10. 27. 
2Hor. C.i. 7.1; Epp. i. 11. 17. 


’The embassy was received by Augustus after he had resigned the consulship, and 
the senate had conferred on him the annual tribunician power, i. e., after July 1 
(Mommeen Rom. Staatsrecht 118, p. 797, n. 3). 


4Tustin. xlii. δ. 7-9; Dio liii. 33. 

5Justinus says (xlii. 5.9) fllium sine pretio remisit, but the terms of the bargain 
were undoubtedly kept secret, although by Dio’s time they were generally known. 

6Cf. Josephus Ant. Iud. xv. 10. 3. 


ΤΟ, the representations on coins of the kneeling Parthian giving back the stand- 
ards; e. g., Oohen 13, pp. 70 and 113. 


152 Davip ΜΑΘΙΕ, JR. 


winter of 22-21 Agrippa was summoned to Sicily,’ where Augustus 
had begun his reforms, and received supreme command of Rome 
and of the West,’ and, as an especial mark of honor, the hand of 
Julia, left a widow by the death of Marcellus in the end of the 
year 23." Such we may feel sure, would not have been the 
reception of Agrippa had he left Rome in a fit of jealousy, or had 
he been relegated to an island. 

Agrippa at once betook himself to his new charge, putting 
down disorder in the city and rebellion in Spain with the strong 
hand,‘ while Augustus, confident of the fidelity of his colleague 
and of his ability to govern the West, journeyed throngh the 
Orient, strengthening his hold upon one province after another, 
' and, a year later, upon the loyalty of all patriotic citizens by 
receiving from the Parthian king the standards and prisoners 
captured so many years before. He brought them home in 
triumph, as though the Parthians had been conquered in battle,’ 
‘and ascending the Capitoline, solemnly placed them in a shrine 
dedicated to Mars Ultor,* even as victorious generals had dedicated 
their spolia opima to Jupiter Feretrius in the brave days of old. 

It may seem to us a farce, but it was none the less a great 
triumph and fraught.with results to the eastern policy of the early 
principate. The diplomacy of Agrippa had proved mightier than 
the swords of Crassus and Antony, and Augustus and his con- 
servative successor profited thereby, and throughout their lives 
maintained a policy of peace and friendliness with the great 
empire which lay to the east of the Roman world. 


PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 


1Dio liv. 6. 3 Dio liv. 11. 8Suet. Aug. 63; Dio liv. 6. 4Dio liv. 6. 11. 
5Cf. Mon. Anc. Gr. xvi. 4: Πάρθους. . .. σκῦλα καὶ σημέας ἀποδοῦναι ἐμοὶ. ... 
ἠνάγκασα. 


6 Mon. Anc. v. 42, 48; Dio liv.8. This was of course the building erected in 20 Β. o., 
not the temple in the Forum Augusti which was dedicated in23.c. (Mommsen Res 
gestae divi Aug., p. 126.) 


NOTES ON LATIN SYNIZESIS 
By Rosert 8. Raprorp 


I. THE BELATION OF OLD LATIN 8YNIZESIS TO THE SENTENCE- 
ACCENT 

There is no more familiar phenomenon in the verse of the early 
Latin dramatists than the quantitative reduction of words which 
show a vowel in hiatus, 6. g., 608, eorum, deos, deorum, fut, 
Jfuistr, yet the precise manner in which this reduction has taken 
place is still a matter of discussion among philologians. Accord- 
ing to some critics, iambic shortening is the real influence at work 
here, and we should pronounce 663, éérum, débrum, οἷο. ; accord- 
ing to others, a slurring of the first of the two vowels has taken 
place, and we have to recognize in the treatment of such cases 
that procedure which is commonly termed by the ancient metri- 
cians synizesis and by Romance scholars diphthongalization.’ 
The latter explanation, which finds strong support in the synizesis 
phenomena of many other Indo-European languages,’ has always 


commended itself to the majority of Plautine students, but, in 
becoming its exponents, the latter have usually been content to 
employ the term ‘synizesis’ in too vague and indefinite a sense. 
This word has, in fact, a somewhat variable meaning, and the 
three great periods of the Roman language, viz., the Old Latin, 
the Classical, and the Romance, show, upon the whole, three fairly 
distinct types of the synizesis process. For although all synizesis 


1 Diphthongalization is not precisely the same process as Old Latin synizesis 
(Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. XXXVI, pp. 170 ff., 179), but the two processes have many 
points of similarity, and are often identified (cf. Schuchardt Vokalismus des Vulgdr- 
lateins II, p. 510). 

2For example, the Romance possessives are derived as a rule from dissyllabic 
meum, tuum, etc., but they often develop independently a diphthongal pronunciation 
very similar to that of Old Latin. Thus, in O. Span., mfo, mia are almost invariably 
monosyllabic in the proclitic position (Cornu Romania XIII, pp. 307 ff.; cf. Trans. 
XXXVI, p. 196, ἢ. 1), and a similar treatment existed in Provengal, as the following 
linea from Appel’s Provenzal. Chrestomathie will serve to illustrate; No. 108 (p. 159), 
144 (La nobla leyczon): diczent: vene vos en, li beneit del mio payre; No. 74 (Ὁ. 111), 
29 (Raimon Gaucelm ) de la mia mort, per so siats a mal mes. 


(CuasstcaL Paro.oay III, April, 198] 153 


154 RospertT S. RADFORD 


rests upon the tendency of the short vowels 7 (6) and w in hiatus 
to assume a semi-vocalic character, and no thoroughgoing dis- 
tinction can consequently be made between Greek and Roman 
usage (Zander Vers. Ital., p. cxxvii), yet it is true that the type 
which is usual in Greek and Classical Latin is chiefly employed 
as a convenient and an artistic device for the purpose of intro- 
ducing difficult word-forms into the stately and sonorous movement 
of the verse ( Trans., p. 167).' The synizesis of Old Latin dialogue 
verse, on the other hand, is entirely free from poetic artifice and 
wholly spontaneous in its character. Finally, the extensive 
synizesis of the Late Latin period often causes the semi-vowel ὦ 
to merge itself in a preceding consonant, to which it gives a 
palatal character, as seen in Fr. singe from *stmya, bras from 
*bracyum, etc. (Lindsay Lat. Lang., pp. 81, 144, 263). 

It is not sufficient then to speak of synizesis in general terms, 
but it is necessary to inquire specifically into the extent, the cause 
and the real character of the Old Latin variety. Hence I have 
sought to show at some length in an article published in the 
Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. XXXVI (1905), pp. 158 ff., that pre- 
cisely that sequence of syllables and that position of the accent 
which causes iambic shortening in the case of vowels separated by 
a consonant, has produced synizesis in the case of the half-vowels 
i (6) and w in hiatus. Thus we find the difficult quantitative 
sequence ~ - < alike in démi frdtrem and in méum frdtrem, but 
the method which is employed in escaping from the difficulty is 
different in the two examples. In cases like the first, the Romans 
naturally tended, as they hastened- to pronounce the following 
accented syllable, to shorten the second syllable of iambic words 
and word-beginnings, thus giving rise to the phenomena of Brevis 
Brevians, 6. g., démi frdtrem, vdliptdtem; in cases like the 
second, however, the language offers a simpler and an easier 
method of removing the difficulty in question through the slurring 
of the initial syllable of the iambic word or word-beginning, and 
thus exhibits the varied phenomena of Brevis Coalescens, 6. g., 
(e)Griindem, 1(1)éndsus, m(e)im frdtrem. With the weakening 


1 This is also the character of the synizesis which is admitted in Old Latin anapaestic 
verse, if synizesis be the true explanation of such phenomena, 6. g., aur(e)ds; cf. 
Zander Vers. Ital., pp. cxxvi ff. 


Notes ON LATIN SYNIZESIS 155 


of meum in the last example, we may well compare, as Professor 
Fay kindly suggests to me, the unemphatic and colloquial English 
possessive which is heard in ‘mi Lord,’ ‘mi brother,’ ‘mi friend,’ 
and the like. 

Although many points of similarity, as has just been indicated, 
exist between iambic shortening and synizesis, there are also impor- 
tant points of difference, and the numerous cases like dedérum, 
edmus, quiéto, tudm-rem, meéd-quidem show us plainly that we 
cannot possibly read all iambic words and word-beginnings with 
shortening (ce. g., désrum, édimus, tiidm- -rem, etc.), and so remove 
synizesis entirely from the dramatic poets, as C. F. W. Maller, 
Skutsch, and Havet have proposed to do. In addition, the vulgar 
Latin forms of a later period should be closely compared with the 
early Latin phenomena. These have been most fully collected from 
late inscriptions and from MSS by Schuchardt, Vokalsmus des 
Vulgdrlateins II, pp. 441-519; III, pp. 295-311, and are referred 
by him to various subdivisions.' The following citations are 
especially noteworthy: des (zes), debus (zebus), de for dies, 


18chuchardt’s treatment of this whole subject is a valuable and suggestive one. 
He points out (II, p. 443) that three phenomena are comprehended as final | results under 
ise term synizesis: (1) Consonantization, ‘Konsonantirung,’ 6. g., génua Verg. A. v. 
; (2) Elision, e.g., sem(i)animes Verg. A. x. 396; (8) Contraction, ‘ Kontraktion,’ 

‘ \Zusnsnmensich ang: e.g.,rewe Verg. E. iii. 96. To the consonantization of the semi- 
vowels (II, pp. 442, 502) he does not assign an especially important réle, but classifies his 
material chiefly under the phenomena of ‘ elision’ (II, pp. 441 ff.) and ‘contraction’ (II, 
pp. 506 ff., 510 ff.). While admitting the extreme difficulty of distinguishing sharply 
between the two last-named processes, Schuchardt adopts the criterion that ‘elision’ 
preserves the quality of the second vowel, as in Thodorus, debus, quescit, while 
‘improper contraction’ preserves that of the first vowel, as in Thedorus, dibus, quisctt 
(II, p. 442). The proposed criterion is, in my judgment, far from being always a con- 
clusive or a satisfactory one, and leads to a frequent separation of examples which 
properly belong together. Thus the forms debus and dibus, quescit and qutscit, which 
Schuchardt is compelled to treat separately (II, pp. 445 ff. and III, pp. 295 ff.; II, pp. 
513 ff. and III, pp. 310 ff.) may very possibly all alike be the result of contraction, 
and the variant spelling in these cases probably points only to a pronunciation of the 
vowel which is intermediate between é and. It seems safe then to adopt Schuchardt’s 
first form of statement (II, p. 442) and to conclude simply that in all the cases in 
question the two vowels form a syllabic unity and thus produce ‘diphthongalization,’ 
the latter term being here used in a sufficiently broad sense to include combinations 
like ἀξ as well as those like di. Schuchardt is clearly correct, however, when he 
maintains further that the word-accent affords no certain criterion between the two 
processes: ‘through inversion of the accent a contraction-diphthong may arise out of 
an elision-diphthong, and vice versa. Beside nositus = nedfitus = nedfitus stands nefitus 
= néofitus; 80 808 = suds = stios = sos (II, p. 443; III, p. 388); des = diés = dies = dies 
(II, p. 445); capredla = capreéla = capréola = capréola (I, p. 427).”’ 


156 Rosert 8. RADFORD 


diebus, die (II, p. 445; III, p. 295; I, p. 67 ff.; cf. Seelmann, 
Ausspr. d. Lat., pp. 239, 323); dis, di(s), dbus for dies, etc. 
(II, p. 513 ἢ; ITI, p. 310); dae, do for deae, deo (II, p. 463; 
III, p. 298); dende for deinde (II, p. 513); andem for eandem 
(II, p. 463); sa, so, su (abl.) for sua, etc. (II, pp. 464 ff.); dos 
for duos (II, p. -467);' dodect for duodecim (II, p. 467);’ 
quescit, Quetus, quiscit, Quitus for quiescit, Quietus (II, pp. 448 ff., 
514 f.; III, p. 296); pulla, pullae for puella, puellae (II, p. 518; 
Fustis,’ fut for fuistis, fuit (II, p. 519).* 

Schuchardt makes no mistake, I think, in repeatedly comparing 
these late and vulgar spellings with the Old Latin phenomena 
( Vokalismus II, pp. 444, 464, 511, etc.).° The early and the late 
Latin forms alike give evidence of the weakness of the semi- 
vowel in hiatus, and it does not seem unreasonable to suppose 
that the Old Latin dissyllabic pronunciations of quiescit, puella, 
fuistis, eandem, deinde (Trans., p. 182) were always largely pre- 


1Cf. the Umbr. contracted form dur ‘ duo,’ from *duur, *duos, Buck Grammar of 
Oscan and Umbrian, $§ 54, 82; cf. also Span. dos, Pg. dois, Fr. deux, Wal. doi. 

20, Ital. dodici, Span. doce, Pg. Pr. doze. 

8Cf. Ital. foste, Pg. fostes, Pr. fotz, Fr. fates. 

4On the early popular form fué (cf. Ital. fu, Pg. foi, Pr. fo, Fr. fat), see also 
W. Meyer, K. Z. XXX, p. 841. The precise manner in which the synizesis forms fustis 
and pulla have arisen is not quite clear. The vulgar prilia might perhaps be explained 
as derived from the original form *pilerula ( Vanicek Etymol. Worterbuch, p. 650) 
through the intermediate stages *pii(e)rula, ptir ’la, but Schuchardt’s explanation 
(II, p. 611) of a contraction-diphthong due to inversion of the accent, i. e., a shift of the 
accent from the first to the second element of the diphthongal sound, is also an attrac- 
tive one (see also above, Ὁ. 155, ἢ. 1): ‘* Der Wortakzent ist hierbei zundchat indifferent. 
Aus puélla, fuisse wurden allerdings zundchst puélla, fulsse, dann aber (wie sp. 
véinte = vetnte, fr. empereur = emperéor = empereér) piella, Aiisse, wie aus den Schrei- 
bungen pulla, fusse hervorgeht. Daher scheint die Corssen’eche Annahme der Betonung 
puélla, futsse (II, 212 fg.) far die Messungen puella, fuisse bei Plautus eine unsichere 

zu sein.’’ Other probable examples of such diphthongs and long vowels as the result 
of contraction in Latin are coepi from co-epi (Stolz Hist. Gramm. I, p. 155) and coctas 
(Varro R. R. iii. 16; 28; cf. Caper Gramm. Lat. VII 94. 16) from codctas (Stolz loc. 
cit., p. 219). Analogy may have exerted aninfluence upon some of these forms, but 
Victor Henry’s assumption (Comp. Gramm.?, Eng. transl., § 73, p. 84) that the con- 
traction which is seen in coepi has first arisen in forms like cdepisti seems, upon the 
whole, unnecessary. 

’The monosyllabic pronunciation of cuius, hutus does not belong to Old Latin 
synizesis in the sense in which the term is here employed, but is ‘ probably due to the 
loas of j between two like vowels’ (Birt Rhein. Mus. LI, p. 247, n.); compare also the 
shortened pronunciation of illius, istius. Schuchardt ( Vok. II, p. 508). quotes here the 
plebeian forms cus and hus, also cuts and huis; see also Corssen [13, Ὁ. 182, and Luchs 
Studem. Stud. I, pp. 319 ff. 


Notes on Latin SynlIZEsis 157 


served in vulgar speech and were essentially identical with the 
late and vulgar quescit, quiscit, pulla, fustis, andem, dende just 
mentioned.’ This latter supposition, though an extremely prob- 
able one, is, however, incapable of absolute proof, since a new 
and independent development might also have produced these 
forms in the later language. In any case the late synizesis is 
considerably more extended in its use than that of the early period. 
For if we except the few and somewhat uncertain examples like 
evenat, augura, or(1)undi ( Trans., p. 169), we find the Old Latin 
synizesis strictly limited to the quantitative sequence . -, in cases 
where this is initial;* the later type, however, is wholly unre- 
stricted and depends solely upon the weakness of the semivowels 
in hiatus. Thus the Old Latin type shows in dialogue meters 
only die, eat, quiescit (Trans., p. 174), but the late language 
employs also very freely pride (Schuchardt II, p. 445), exatis, 
exuntes (II, pp. 463 f.), requevit (II, p. 450), facendum, adridat, 
Thodoro, etc. 

To return to the early Latin occurrence of these phenomena, 
the dramatists admit synizesis most frequently in proclitic and 
‘enclitic’ words like the possessive or demonstrative pronouns and 
the substantive verb, which have little appreciable accent of their 
own (e. g. m(e)um frdtrem, (e)dm-rem, f(u)i liber), but they 
also employ it freely in the case of many substantives and verbs 
like dié, ded, sci6, which have the ordinary intensity of tone. It 
is in the treatment of this last-named class of words that I fear 
my former discussion was not sufficiently clear, but requires some 
amplification and enlargement.’ Thus, in explaining the occur- 
rence of synizesis formerly, I properly attached much importance 


1Cf. Schuchardt Vok. I, p. 59: “ΟἿ ist die Aehnlichkeit zwischen der vulgf&ren 
Sprache des 4., 5., 6. Jahrh. n. Chr. und dem alterthamlichen Latein betont worden. 
Unndthigerweise; dies alterthimliche Latein ist weiter Nichts, als vulgares.’’ 


2The species of syncope by which vowel πὸ was converted into consonant u after 
l, r, gq, g and 8. 6. g. in larva, milvos, reliquos, etc.— earlier larua, miluos, relicuos —is 
still unknown to Plautus and belongs to a somewhat later stage of the language ( Lind- 
say Lat. Lang., p. 46; Capt., p. 20). After other consonants vowel u is simply lost 
through thie process, e.g. in quatt(u)or, quatt(u)ordecim, but these latter forms are 
scarcely attested for Plautus (7rans., Ὁ. 174, ἢ. 8), and are first clearly shown for 
Ennius, cf. Georges Lex. Wortformen s.v.; Gréber ALL. V, pp. 127 f.; Schuchardt IT, 
p. 619; III, p. 311. 


80f., however, Trans. XXXVI, p. 198, ἢ. 1; p. 196, ἢ. 2; p. 210. 


158 Rosert S. RapFrorp 


in several cases to the weakened uses of some of these forms, e. g., 
to the trite or emotional use of ded and the parenthetical use of 
scio (loc. cit., p. 181, n. 1; pp. 195 f.). No explanation can be 
really complete, however, which does not recognize the fact that 
the slurred forms of ded, dé and sci6 occur not only in weak, but 
also in fairly emphatic uses of these words, which does not 
meet the very plausible arguments which the opponents of Old 
Latin synizesis advance at this point. For the latter claim that 
all iambic words like dé0, dté, sct0, etc., which have a distinct 
accent, have their final syllable shortened by the accent, and there- 
fore cannot well have the first or accented syllable slurred in 
subordination to the second. Although this argument has been 
confidently employed against genuine synizesis from the time of 
Corssen (cf. II, pp. 761 f.) to the present, I believe that it will 
appear upon closer examination to be wholly fallacious. Thus— 
to consider first the cases of iambic shortening—although the 
accent of the single iambic word is undoubtedly one of the factors 
in this process, yet it is now generally recognized that it is far 
from being the only factor, or even the chief one. For in actual 
speech we are not concerned so much with individual words as 
with the phrase or the sentence. Hence it is not the iambic word 
as such that we usually find shortened, but the iambic word in 
certain sentence-phrases, 6. g., vold-sctre, bené-fdctum, tibi-dico, 
dedi-déno, havé-frdter (in verse ulso dédi-dond, hdvé-fratér, vdl6- 
scir(e)~). For it is clear that as the voice hastens here to 
pronounce the following accented syllable, it utters both syllables 
of the iambic word so hurriedly that the whole seems to the ear 
to have the value of two shorts; see especially Lindsay’s admir- 
able discussion of the Iambic Law, Lat. Lang., pp. 210 ff.; 
Capt., pp. 30 ff.' Hence, as Lindsay correctly observes, the words 
which were most completely shortened in the Old Latin period 
and to which the shortening process was first applied, are auxiliary 
adverbs like bene and male, auxiliary pronouns like ego, mhz, 
tibi, and subordinate adverbs like modo, cito, 1b1, ubt, nist. Simi- 
larly Skutsch (Sat. Viadr., pp. 128 f.; Γέρας, p. 128) states the 
principle that ‘‘the first syllable of shortened iambic words was 


1Of. alao Am. Jour. Phil. XXVII, p. 434. 


Notes oN LaTIN SYNIZESIS 159 


often unaccented,” and cites as examples the frequent shortening 
of such proclitics and ‘enclitics’ as aptid (ménsam),' enim (véro), 
tamén (néqueo), quidém (praétor), aptly comparing with these 
the shortening seen in voliptdtem, senéctutem, and.the like. To 
these cases of weakening I should like to add the almost complete 
loss of final s which Leo (Forsch., pp. 267 ff.) has pointed out in 
the subordinate adverbs nimis, satis, magis, and which Hauler 
(Hinl. z. Phor., p. 50) notes also in prius. Such examples show 
clearly that the principal factor in iambic shortening is not the 
accent of the individual iambic word, but the accent of the phrase 
or of the sentence in which the iambic word is placed. Hence, 
even in the case of those terminations which were finally short- 
ened entirely, e. g., 0, or, at, it and the like, we clearly have a right 
to assume that the shortening of such words as homd, vold, dabd, 
vetér, vetdt, dedit, etc., began chiefly in sentence-phrases (cf. 
Lindsay Capt., p. 33; Lat. Lang., pp. 210 ff.), although it must 
be freely granted that the shortening process was here assisted by 
the accent of the individual word. 

Important as the individual accent is, it is often profoundly 
modified in the sentence, and if we wish to obtain practical results 
in accentual study, our doctrine must not be one of individualism 
so much as one of collectivism and association. In questions of 
accent, we cannot, to be sure, neglect the study of the single 
word, but we must fix our attention still more upon the sentence, 
since it is the organism of which single words are but the parts 
and the instruments. Thus the substantive and the verb are uni- 
versally admitted to be the most strongly accented parts of speech, 
but even their accent is often greatly weakened in the sentence in 
consequence of their association with other words, so that, in 
calling them strongly accented, we scarcely mean more than that 
they are pronounced with stress in the majority of their uses. We 
may profitably compare the accent of a simple English sentence 
such as ‘I c&ll the géds to afd’; if three distinct accents are 

1Leo (Forsch., pp. 226 f.) appears to go too far in maintaining that the usual 
pyrrhic scansion of aptid in Old Latin verse is due to a definite loss of the final ἃ. The 


whole particle was greatly weakened in pronunciation, and as a consequence the final 
consonant was no doubt sometimes obscured; cf. Corp. Gloss. Lat. II, 21, 40: ‘ape’ 


παρά. 


160 Rospert 8S. RapFrorp 


observed in such a sentence, we recognize that it is spoken with 
sharp distinctness, but in hurried colloquial speech it is much 
more likely that only two accents will be clearly heard, e. g., ‘I 
céll (the gods) to aid,’ or ‘(I call) the géds to aid!’, while the 
words which are inclosed in parentheses will be slurred or treated 
as subordinate. Similarly, whenever, in a Latin sentence like 
deos quaéso ut stt supérstes (And. 487), the chief accent of the 
sentence was thrown upon quaéso, the individual word deos was 
made subordinate to a certain extent, and consequently the accent 
of the first syllable was not left strong enough to resist slurring 
under the existing phonetic conditions.’ In the case of such a 
sentence, no doubt there existed originally two forms of pronunci- 
ation differentiated by the placeof thechief accent, viz. d(e)0s quaéso 
and dé0s quaeso, and we may say in general that during one period 
of Old Latin both d(e)os and déds must have existed, and that one 
or the other of the two forms must have been used according to 
the accent scheme of the particular sentence. Owing to the 
fugitive nature of Latin 7 (6) in hiatus, however, the former pro- 
nunciation proved so much easier and more euphonious that, in 
the time of Plautus, it was almost exclusively in use.’ 


1 So also, if Plautus has a few cases (chiefly in the first foot) of neglect of common 
word-accent, as in Amph. 761 de'disse déno hédie (cf. Ahlberg Corrept. tamb., pp. 
80 ff.), such a passage was probably not pronounced dedisse déno hédie, but rather 
dedisse dono hédie, the voice hastening over the whole word dedisse and coming to 
rest, as it were, upon dono. For a somewhat similar view, which, however, needlessly 
suggests a word-group dedisse-déno, cf. Lindsay Capt., p. 36. 


2In the case of forms like deo, die, it may perhaps be remembered in addition that, 
in vulgar Latin, di (de) tended to pass into the sound of y, and at a later period into 
that of z or of simple ἃ. This latter pronunciation gives rise to the vulgar spellings 
do, dae, des, zes, etc. ; cf. above, pp. 155f.; Trans. XXXVI. 200; Lindsay Lat. Lang., pp. 
49, 84; Seelmann Ausspr. ἃ. Lat., p.323. Thus Lindsay remarks that ‘the aasibilation 
showed itself even in the case of accented di, ti.’ The trite use of deus in oaths and 
prayers, however, is probably the principal factor in producing in Old Latin the much- 
discussed contract forms di, ‘dis from original “dee (*die), *dees (*dies), but the fuller 
discussion of these contractions must be reserved for a separate paper (see Am. Jour. 
Phil. XXIX).—So far as regards the full spelling of the singular forms, examples 
of dio and dia are cited from the Inscrr. by Seelmann Ausspr., Ὁ. 187 (cf. Trans. 
XXXVI, p. 194, n. 3), and dium (=deorum) is read by Jordan in Cato 47. 16. It 
is not quite clear whether we have here weakened forms of deo, deum and dea, or 
case-forms derived from di(v)us, but the former explanation is more probable. One 
has sometimes been tempted to assume also (cf. Lindsay Lat. Lang., p. 618) that we 
find dius as the atonic form of deus in the locution me Dius Fidius, but, in addition to 
other difficulties, very grave doubt exists as to the quantity of the i in Dius Fidius, 


Notes on LATIN SyNIZESIS 161 


One other point requires notice. We have seen that the slurred 
form d(e)os arises originally in such a sentence as deos quaéso ; 
no sooner, however, is this form fully established here than it 
becomes possible to accent freely in verse d(e)ds quaeso tit vobts 
decét (Ad. 491, 275), as well as to retain the original accent- 
scheme deos quaéso; cf. also d(1)e quinti and d(7)é quintt. To 
sum up: The objections which Skutsch, Ahlberg, and Gleditsch 
make against synizesis on the score of the accent of the single 
word déd have weight only if deo be the sole word or the last 
word of the sentence,’ in short, only if deo be completely isolated 
and cut off from the society of its fellows, and thus entirely 
removed from the normal play of the sentence-accent. Old Latin 
Bynizesis is produced as the voice is in rapid motion and is 
hastening to pronounce a following accented syllable; hence it is 
excluded from the end of the grammatical or metrical sentence, 
since, in this last position, we cannot say sft deo, but, in order to 
produce synizesis, we must have the series continued, as in διέ 
deo gratia.’ 


especially if the reading of Asin. 23 is correct (per Dium Fidium, where Dium is an 
almost necessary correction for MS deum). Stolz (Indogerm. Forsch. XVIII, pp. 453.) 
suggests that the acansion Dius in this passage is due to confusion with dtus, divus, and 
argues also for the existence of the form Dius, which he derives from Ind.-Eur. dieus. 


10Qn the similarity of sentence-close and verse-close, cf. Birt Rhein. Mus. LI, 
p. 266; L. Maller Res Metr.?, pp. 266 ff. 


2The exclusion of synizesis from the close of lines which end with an iambus 

(~ =) was explained in my former article (Trans. XXXVI, pp. 165, 179, 195, ἢ. 1, 208) 
as due solely to the principle of metrical regularity, but since, in the close of a metri- 
cal sentence like frdtre med, synizesis would be entirely dependent upon the metrical 
accent and could not occur in actual speech, it seems very possible that it ts excluded 
from iambic verse-closes by the accentual conditions as well as by metrical convention. 
The metrical accent alone is probably capable of producing some changes in word- 
forms, but it by no means follows that ita power is unrestricted like that of the 
word-accent; the statement of Trans. XXXVI, p. 176, probably goes beyond our 
knowledge here, and requires some modification. On the other hand, the non-occur- 
rence of tetramoric aureds in full anap. verse-closes, which is pointed out by Skutech 
(Tépas, Ὁ. 181), does not seem to me to require any special explanation. In my judg- 
ment, no certainty has yet been reached for anap. verse respecting either the limits of 
shortening or the occurrence of synizesis except in the case of iambic words, I myself 
“am inclined to accept, for every foot except the last, the anap. scansions pérdidi, 
atiréas, since these latter seem to me to rest on plausible grounds of historical develop- 
ment, which I have briefly stated elsewhere (Am. Jour. Phil. XXVII, pp. 430 ff.). As 
regards the non-occurrence of atireas in anap. closes, and its occurrence in the dac- 
tylic closes of the Augustans (Trans. XXXVI, p. 168), though not in those of Ennius, 
it should be remembered that the Augustan hexameter has its own ictus, ita own 


162 Rosert S. RapFrorgp 


II. SOME SPEOIAL CASES OF SYNIZESIS 


It remains to note briefly a few special problems and special 
developments of Latin synizesis. The first of these problems 
relates to the vocative of the possessive meus. It is important to 
remember here that this case of the possessive almost invariably 
occupies in prose the proclitic position immediately before the 
substantive, 6. g., mi fili, mi pater, mi fratres (Trans. XXXVI, 
p. 197, n. 1), and it is clear that this position has influenced to 
some extent the case-form of the vocative plural. Thus, in the case 
of the nominative plural, mer frdtres is only one of several possible 
word-orders; consequently nominative plural m(e)1 shows perhaps 
only approximate syncope and is only quasi-monosyllabic. In the 
vocative plural, however, mez fratres is an almost invariable order, 
and here we find that m(e)i has been reduced to an absolute 
monosyllable in Old Latin, and may be fully elided before a fol- 
lowing short syllable, e. g., Ci. 678 πι(1) hdminés, mi spéctatéres 
(anap. sept.); Mz. 1330 6 mi dculi. In the latter passage, our 
editions (e. g., edd. min. and mai.) usually accept o met from 
very inferior MSS, but the form mz: is clearly implied in the read- 
ing oh mihi of BCD, and should unquestionably be placed in 
the text;’ for the legitimate hiatus, cf. Mz. 1330 ὁ mi 4nime; 
As. 664 mi dnime; Cas. 184 mi Olympié (Skutsch Philol. LIX, 
p. 487; Maurenbrecher Hiat., p. 162). Similarly, although many 
scholars question the contraction of Latin ἐδ into 7, the ancient 
derivation of voc. sing. mi from *mie, voc. of atonic mius, remains 
distinctly the most probable explanation of the form (cf. Lindsay 
Lat. Lang., p. 422), and the contraction may possibly have 


artistic devices, and its own special conventions to facilitate the fitting of difficult 
words into the framework of the verse (syntzesis Graecanica). Finally, the total 
suppression of vowel 4 and u suggested in Trans. XXXVI, pp. 169, 204, cannot be con- 
sidered certain; it is perhaps admiasible to reject as corrupt the half-dozen passages 
cited in the latter passage, and to retain with Skutech (I'éas, p. 111) only Sf. 39 pol, 
méo animo dmnis, since feet like mdlévolente, séquimint seem to be also legitimate in 
Old Latin anapaests. Miller, who scans dttinent in anapaests, is inconsistent in 
accenting malevdélénte (Pl. Pr., p. 416). 


1The Pl. and Ter. MSS, as is well known, constantly read mthi for mi, nihil for 
nil; cf., for example, Ahlberg Procel. I, pp. 105 ff. Similarly, mihi is not infrequently 
written for voc. mi, as As. 689 mihi patrone, Men. 1125 mihi germane, Mer. 947 mihi 
sodalis (loc. cif., p. 107). 


Notes oN Latin SyYNIZESIS 163 


been facilitated by the almost invariable proclitic position which 
it occupies. 

I may mention also the fact that Latin has assimilated the 
present ‘subjunctive’ (optative) forms of esse, viz. siém, siés, siét, 
siént to the two plural forms stmus, sitis. Thus the much more fre- 
quent and more numerous forms have followed the analogy of the 
less frequent and less numerous ones, and, in view of the fact that 
the fuller forms remained in use to so late a period, some further 
explanation of the final outcome here seems desirable (cf. Stolz 
Indogerm. Forsch. XVIII, p. £70). Zander’s explanation (Vers.- 
Ital., p. cxx) that the 7 of s2¢ is not due to analogy, but is a Latin con- 
traction of -é-, is scarcely admissible, since the Old Latin form can- 
not well have been s7éf, as he assumes, with iambic shortening, but 
was much more probably svet;* even the hypothesis which is 
mentioned by Sommer (Lat. Lautl., p. 577, n. 1) and by Stolz 
(loc. cit.) , viz. that contraction of -ié- to -7- may first have taken 
place in ‘enclitic? combinations like potisiét (shortened from 
potisiet) is not free from difficulties. On the other hand, it does 
not seem possible, even in the initial iambic sequence, that -é- 
should contract directly into -i-, instead of into -é-; for the 
occasional occurrence on late inscriptions of spellings like dibus 
(CIE. VI 25540), Quita, inquitare, etc.’ (as well as of Quetus, 
quescere, requescere), scarcely points to the production of a 
genuine 1-sound in these cases. Hence I should suggest the fol-- 


1Sommer Lat. Lautlehre, Ὁ. 446, 4180 wishes to make use of the proclitic position 
of the vocative to explain the form, but the syncope of *méié to *met is improbable in 
the extreme, and is not greatly helped out by comparison with hypothetical ill(e), 
ind(e), etc.; cf. Am. Jour. Phil. XXVII, pp. 418 ff. Of course the contraction seen in 
mi, fili, Valeri and the like is due primarily to the trite and emotional use of these 
everyday forms; compare what was said above upon the contractions dt, dis (p.160, n. 2). 


2With respect to the orthography, however, the MSS of Cato give only the full 
form stes in the second person, much more usually siet in the third person singular 
and equally often sient in the third person plural, and they offer these full forms both 
in the middle and at the end of the sentence (Weise Quaest. Caton., Gdttingen, 1886, 
pp. 46 f.; Neue Formenlehre 1118. pp. 598 f.). The earlier inscriptions aleo show only 
siet and sient in both the positions named. Hence Zander (loc. cit., ἢ. cxx) argues with 
much probability that in the middle of the verse or hemistich, where the Plautus MSS 
now show only the short forms sim, sis, sit, sint, this strict orthographical uniformity 
is due to the corrections of the later grammarians, and Plautus himself probably 
wrote indifferently sim or siem, sis or sies, etc. Our Plautus MSS (P) retain dimoric 
siet within the verse only in Au. 370 rapécidarum ubi taéntum siét in aédibus. 


8Schuchardt Vok. II, pp. 444 ff. 


164 Rosert S. RapForD 


lowing explanation as possibly accounting for the influence of the 
plural forms: Weakly accented forms of the substantive verb like 
siém, siet are necessarily synizesis forms of an extreme type in 
Old Latin, and therefore very unstable in pronunciation. In other 
words, they were regularly pronounced within the sentence very 
nearly as *sém, *sét, e. g. 3(1)ém liber; only at the close of the 
sentence was the dissyllabic pronunciation sem fully retained, as 
we may see from the usage of the dramatists (Brock Quaest. 
gramm., pp. 84 f.; Hauler Hinl. zu Phor., p. 63,n.2). If, then, 
before the beginning of the literary period, these forms sometimes 
became genuinely monosyllabic and were pronounced at times 
simply as *sém, *set, the introduction, through analogy, of -?- 
from the two plural forms could have easily occurred.’ On the 
other hand, if the weakly accented forms *siémus, *siétis were 
ever introduced in consequence of the analogy of the singular, 
they were quickly reduced to *sémus, *sétis (cf. the reduction 
seen in (é)désdem), and then assimilated to the short forms. 

I have stated in the first section of this paper that the effects 
of the expiratory accent are perceived most clearly in the case of 
weakly accented words, and I wish to illustrate this principle still 
further from the later Augustan usage. The poets of the classical 
age accomplished veritable marvels in checking the use of popular 
synizesis and in cultivating and developing a more precise quanti- 
tative pronunciation. Thus they restored déés, scid, did and even 
diéllum, though this last form had definitely become dvellum or 
*dellum in Old Latin (Birt Rhein. Mus. LI, p. 73); they rescued 
also very largely meos and 608, although they were compelled by 
the force of the expiratory accent freely to admit slurring (pre- 
tonic syncope) in (e)désdem and (e)dsdem. It is noteworthy also 
that they were unable to banish the slurred pronunciation in the 
case of subordinate particles which were uttered rapidly and with 
little emphasis like proinde, dein, deinceps, deinde,’ cf. quoad 


10f. int (Corp. Gloss. II 75. 23) for eunt, formed under similar conditions on the 
analogy of wmus, ttis (Stolz Milller’s Handb. 118, 2, p. 161). On the other hand, since 
audiunt is quite stable in pronunciation, we find no form *audint to show the influence 
of audimus and auditis. 

2Cf. dende CIL. VI 30112; cf. also quat CLE. 470. 1; qua ad, CLE. 208, and 
Georges Lex. Wort/.; quod, L. Maller Res Metr.?, p. 824, and Brix-Niemeyer on 
Cap. 670. 


Notes on LATIN SYNIZESIS 165 


(L. Maller Res Metr.’, pp. 818 ff.). Vergil, it is true, had 
restored in part déhinc,’ and we find prdin restored in Priap. 
Ixxxiv. 16; on the other hand, many of the best poets were in 
doubt about the correct treatment of such particles, and it is for 
this reason that Horace, Lucan, and Martial avoided dein, proin, 
proinde altogether (L. Maller Res Metr.’, p. 317; Birt loc. cit., 
p. 268). In general, however, the full forms prdin, proinde, déin, 
déinde were attempted only by the very late poets who ventured 
also on cui and hiic,; the synizesis forms proinde, dein, deinde 
were here retained by the classical poets, and it is evident that this 
retention was closely connected with the subordination of the 
vocables in the sentence and their consequent weakening in pro- 
nunciation. Thus these particles belong, with ego, mihi, bene, 
male, and the like, among the more familiar words of common life, 
which the literary language, in spite of its earnest efforts to 
develop the quantitative pronunciation, was unable effectively to 
withdraw from the influence of the sentence accent.” 

It is possible also that the Old Latin synizesis of initial iambic 
sequences is still preserved in didum from *diudum, although this 
derivation was too confidently assumed by me in Trans. XXXVI, 
pp. 182 (183), n. 8, and 201. The di- of this particle is usually 
referred at present to Lat. dir-are, Gk. δήν (*d¢av), δη-θά 
(Walde Etym. Worterb. s.v.; Osthoff Indogerm. Forsch. V, p.280), 
but it is still quite possible to defend the earlier derivation 
from *dju-dum (Fleckeisen Jahrb. CI (1870), p. 71; Bréal and 
Bailly Dictionn. étymol.’, p. 66; Vanicek Etym. Worterb., p. 359). 
The objection of Solmsen (Stud., p. 196) that Latin loses the d 
rather than the 7 of the initial group dj is entitled to serious con- 
sideration, but it is not conclusive; for the combination dj might 
be variously treated in Latin under the influence of analogy or of 
dialectic variation. Compare the group du which yields appar- 
ently both ὃ and d in bimus, dimus, biennium, diennium, Umbr. 


1See example in Johnston Metrical Licenses of Vergil, p. 16, n. 2. 


?Latin popular poetry, on the other hand, always retained synizesis in a larger 
circle of words; see the examples in Hodgman Harv. Stud. IX, pp. 144, 152, 160, 162f. ; 
166. This later synizesis has much in common with that of O. Lat., but it is no longer 
restricted to iambic words and word-beginnings, and often resembles externally the 
so-called synizesis Graecanica (Trans, XXXVI, pp. 167 f.). 


166 Rosert 5. RapFrorp 


di-fue ‘bifidum,’ etc. (Stolz Hist. Gramm. I, p. 304; Buck Gram- 
mar of Oscan and Umbrian, § 102. 3), and compare the late and 
vulgar double forms des, zes (Schuchardt ΤΙ, p. 445; ITI, p. 295), 
and tes (e. g., Fabr. viii. 41, cited by Schuchardt I p. 69).’ 

A second case in which Old Latin synizesis is perhaps to be 
recognized is that of the particle jam, which is most probably an 
acc. sing. fem. from the pronominal stem t- (Lindsay Lat. Lang., 
p. 570; Walde Etym. Worterb., p. 292; Bréal and Bailly Dictionn. 
étymol.’, p. 140), as quam and tam are acc. sg. fem. from the pro- 
nominal stems quo- and ¢fo-; in its abverbial use, jam should be 
compared especially with Old Latin em, which is used both as an 
acc. sing. m. from the Ind.-Eur. pronominal stem *e/o ( Walde loc. 
cit., 8. Ὁ. ‘em’) and as an adverb with the meaning of ‘tum’ ( Paul. 
Fest. 53. 37 Th.).? If we assume the usual derivation of jam 
from the pronominal stem -1-, the question arises whether the 
consonantization of the ὁ belongs to the Italic or the pre-Italic 
period. Some arguments may be adduced for the former view, 
which would evidently involve the operation of Old Latin synizesis. 
Although the acc. sing. fem. is usually written eam, the spelling 
sam, which is at once phonetic and original, is found repeatedly 
in the MSS of Varro, and the spelling twm is found in a Luceria 
inscription (Neue IT’, p. 381; Lindsay Lat. Lang., p. 487). On 
this hypothesis it is natural that the original initial vowel should 
be consonantized in the simple adverb, but, in agreement with the 
laws of Old Latin synizesis (Trans. XXXVI, pp. 173 ff., 183), 
that it should be fully retained wherever it ceases to be initial. 
Thus, in not admitting synizesis, the compounds étiam, quispiam, 
uspiam, and the Old Latin quasi-compound niinciam or nunc iam’ 


1 With ies for dies compare Atiutor for Adtutor, CIL. VI 3, 20752. Schuchardt 
Vok. I, p. 68, and ITI, p. 24, cites also late plebeian occurrences of aiecit, atuncta and 
the like. 

2An adverb im, the acc. of ts (cf. inter-im) and glossed expressly by ἤδη, λοιπόν, 
is still recognized by Lindsay Lat. Lang., p. 438, and Walde loc. cit., s.v. ‘em,’ but the 
Corp. Gloss. Lat. (II. 75, 36) now reads here i<a>m. 

8Langen Beitrdge, pp. 285 ff., seeks to show (1) that there is a trisyllabic nunc-tam, 
which in sense is a more emphatic nunc, and which is used with the impv. or subj. in 
commands, and with the future; (2) that there are two separate monosyllabic words 
munc iam, which mean ‘now at last’ in contrast with a past action, and are used with 
the present tense. This distinction of Langen’s has been accepted by several editors 
of Plautus, 6. g., Gdtz and Schdll in edd. mai. and min., Lindsay (Cap. vas. 266 and 


Nores oN LaTIn SyYNIZESIS 167 


would correspond in all respects to aGntéa, pdstéa, exeal, pride, 
idéo, péréo, ab-eo ad-eum (loc. cit., p. 173), while the development 
of iam would only have gone one stage further than that of the 
simple ea, eat, dié, etc. (loc. cit., p. 210, Add. 1). Again it would 
not be necessary on this hypothesis to explain the vocalization of 
medial 7 in etiam and nunciam, which the current derivation 
from et+jam and nunc + jam confidently assumes, but for which 
a parallel can scarcely be found in historical Latin under similar 
phonetic conditions, as Birt has fully pointed out (Rhein. Mus. 
LI, pp. 70 ff.)’ The assumption of a dissyllabic or only quasi- 
monosyllabic form tam in the Italic period seems, however, opposed 
by the form of the compound quoniam, if the change from m to n 
in this particle is due, as is commonly assumed, to the influence 
of the consonantal spirant, i. e., guoniam for *quom-jam as venio 
for *gvem-jo (Stolz Lat. Lautl.’, p. 87; Walde loc. cit., s.v.). Itis 


772), Morris (Tri. 3), etc. On the other hand, Ussing (Amph. prol. 38) and Skutach 
(Forsch., p. 107) unhesitatingly reject this rule, and although Brix appears to accept 
Langen’s distinction (Cap. 266), he disregards it in practice, introducing nunc-tam 
with the present by conjecture in Cap. 772 sGpplicfre nanc <ifm > certamst mihf. Any 
one who will turn to Langen’s own discussion will find that he cites no leas than six 
examples from Plautus of nunc-tam with the present tense; after explaining away five 
of these examples with considerable difficulty, he then bases his distinction upon the 
one remaining example, Cap. 266, while, according to his own admission, the proposed 
rule does not hold good for the usage of Terence (Zu. 561)! Since resulta obtained in 
this arbitrary fashion are of little value, it may be worth while to state the simple facts 
of Old Latin usage. There are in all fifty-three cases of trisyllabic nunc-iam in 
Plautus, twenty-eight of these being in verse-closes and twenty-five within the verse. 
On the other hand, the Plautus MSS offer a few cases also of dissyllabic nunc-iam 
within the verse, where the two parts are not separated by any intervening word. Thus 
the diasyllable occurs at least twice with the impv.: Aw. 451 {te sfine ntinc-iam intro 
6mnes (where the ed. min. brackets tam); Amph. prol. 88 nunc-iam héc animum 
6mnes quaé loqufr advértité; once with future: Poe. 874 nanc-iam dehinc erit verax 
tib{ (less natural is the scansion of the ed. min.: nGncifm dehinc érit verfx); once 
with the present indic.: Cap. 266 ninc-iam ciltros ddtinét. In short, the metrical 
treatment of nunc-iam like the metrical treatment of a-suo (Trans. XXXVI, p. 175, n.), 
is wholly independent of the precise meaning; thus we find trisyllabic nunciam in the 
sense of ‘now at last’ Ep. 135 illlam amabam 6lim: nGnciam 4lia cira impéndet 
péctori (Langen : olfm: nunc tam, but cf. Skutech Forsch., p. 107). It is true, of course, 
that nunc-iam is usually trisyllabic, that it is used chiefly with the impv. and that it 
is commonly equivalent to a strengthened nunc, but no other part of Langen’s account 
appears to be established. Lindsay (Bursian’s Jahresbericht XXXIV [1906], p. 208 n.) 
apparently still accepts Langen’s distinction and seeks to explain away its difficulties, 
but his discussion shows that he is fully,aware of its very dubious character, 


1 Birt loc. cit., p. 79, states the rule that 7 regularly maintains itself in historical 
Latin in the interior of words, wherever it occurs between two non-i-vowels. 


168 RosBERT S. RADFORD 


perhaps possible, however, that the change of m to n in quoniam 
may be otherwise explained. Maurenbrecher indeed (Hiatus im 
alten Latein, Leipzig, 1899, p. 39, n. 4, and p. 84) has boldly 
assumed that monosyllabic words in m had already developed in 
Old Latin and in Plautus a hiatus form in n, and he finds examples 
of this pronunciation in quoniam, conauditus, cunere (=conheres, 
CIL. VI 8282) and the like, as well as in Ital. con amore, Fr. 
rien, Span. quien. This view scarcely seems supported by sufli- 
cient evidence, and still another explanation of the change may 
be suggested as a possible one. It is well known that the final m 
of monosyllabic words was regularly assimilated to the initial con- 
sonant of a following word, and thus freely appeared as n in the 
proclitic forms con, quon, cun, quen, tan and the like; thus we find 
con qua, tan durum, cun dies, cun bit, etc. (Schuchardt Vok. I, 
p. 117; Corssen I’, p. 266). An especially notable example of 
the assimilation of a conjunction quom is that given by Cicero, 
Fam, ix. 22. 2, i.e., quom (cum) nos pronounced nearly as cunnos 
(cf. Birt Rhein. Mus. LI [1896], pp. 94 ff.). Hence in much the 
same way that an independent form con has been developed in 
proclitic use from the preposition com (cum), and is sometimes 
used instead of the latter even in hiatus," we may perhaps con- 
jecture that a proclitic form in m has arisen also in the case of the 
conjunction quom, and that it is this latter which appears in the 
compound quon-tam,;’ the chief difficulty which stands in the way 
of the assumption of an original Old Latin form *iam would thus 
be removed. 
ELMIRA COLLEGE 


1K. g. conire, Quint. i. 6. 17 and i. 5. 69: conivola, Paul. Fest. 43. 8 Th.; conin- 
quere, id. 45.11 Th.; although Thewrewk (Paul. Fest. 46.7) now reads comauditum 
and comangustatum in place of conauditum and conangustatum (id. 65. 8 Mall.). 

3 Further examples of the manner in which the conjunction quom and the preposi- 
tion com (quom) have influenced each other, are collected by Solmsen Stud. z. lat. 
Lautgeschichte, p. 79. 


THE LEGAL SETTING OF PLATO’S APOLOGY 
By Rosert J. BONNER 


The appearance in 1893 of an edition of the Apology of Plato 
with an elaborate introduction by Schanz aroused new interest in 
' the various questions connected with the trial of Socrates. But 
apart from the problems involved in the indictment and the alter- 
native penalty proposed by the defendant, the strictly legal side 
of the Apology has nowhere received adequate treatment.’ The 
purpose of this paper is to develop the legal setting of the defense 
and compare it from this standpoint with contemporary forensic 
speeches. It is immaterial whether the Apology is purely ficti- 
tious or is in part based on truth—“stilizirte Wahrheit,” as 
Gomperz’ neatly expresses it. In the Apology attributed to 
Xenophon we have, I believe, the nearest approach to an exact 
report of the real speech.’ 

The Platonic defense of Socrates consists of three distinct 
speeches. The first is his answer to the speeches of the prose- 
cutors and deals with the question of guilt or innocence. The 
second, delivered after the verdict “guilty” had been rendered, is 
devoted to the presentation of the alternative penalty proposed 
by Socrates in accordance with Athenian practice. This is of 
special interest as being the only speech of this kind extant. 
The third is an informal address to the jurors after the conclusion 
of the trial. Socrates had been left in the courtroom for a brief 
period (Apol. 39e) while the officials were making preparations 
to convey him to prison, and he employed the interval by addressing 
first those who had voted for conviction and then those who had 
voted for acquittal. Official permission was probably not neces- 


1 Menzel in his admirable monograph “ Untersuchungen zum Sokrates-Processe,’’ 
Sitzungsber. ἃ. K. Akad. ἃ. Wiss. zu Wien CKLV(1908). II, pp. 1 ff., hasdone more along 
this line than any previous scholar. Owing to his legal training his conclusions regard- 
ing technical matters cannot be lightly rejected. 

2Gr. Denk. II, p. 81. The view that it is practically a verbatim report of Socrates’ 
speech is out of the question. 

8Schanz, pp. 76 ff.; Menzel op. cit., pp. 5 ff. 

(CuassicaL PHILOLOGY, III April, 1908] 169 


° 170 RoBert J. BonNER 


sary. We have, so far as I am aware, no similar proceedings in 
any other case, though informal addresses to the jurymen delivered 
by strangers at the conclusion of a case are not unknown.’ 

Modern legal procedure does not provide for the separate trial 
of the question of guilt and the question of penalty. Where the 
jury has discretion in the matter of penalty only one verdict is 
rendered. If, however, the jury determines the guilt and the judge 
fixes the penalty, the formal judgment need not be given when the 
verdict is announced. Before sentence is pronounced in a capital 
case the defendant is given an opportunity to say why sentence 
shall not be passed on him forthwith, but this is a mere form and 
nothing that he may say has any influence even in those juris- 
dictions in which he is not allowed to take the stand as a witness. 
The only modern parallel to the remarks of Socrates after the con- 
clusion of the trial is the address that a condemned criminal 
sometimes makes to those assembled to witness his execution. 

Indictments and statements of claim were always read in court 
by the clerk as part of the preliminary proceedings.’ It occasion- 
ally happened that litigants had them read again during the course 
of the speech or themselves repeated them verbatim or in substance 
as Socrates chose todo.’ The relation between the general charge 
of impiety in the indictment and the specific charge of corrupting 
the youth has given rise to much discussion. Schanz*‘ regards 
the corruption of the youth as an overt act of impiety rather than 
a separate charge. Menzel (p. 25) believes that it is impossible 
to prove that the corruption of the youth was a special form of 
impiety owing to the paucity of evidence. In his opinion offenses 
against public morality could be joined to a charge of impiety, as 
in the case of Aspasia.” This view is borne out by the fact that 
it was not contrary to Attic practice to include in a single indict- 
ment offenses that were really distinct. 


1 Menzel op. cit., p.50; cf. Antiph. 6. 21. 
?Meier-Sché6mann-Lipsius Att. Process, Ὁ. 919. 


3Dem. 45. 46; Antiph. 1, 2; 6, 16; Plato Apol. 246. Earlier in his speech (196) 
Socrates gives the exact wording of a fictitious indictment in accordance, as he 
suggests, with the rules of the court. 


40. cit., p. 12; cf. Att. Process, pp. 367 ff. 
5Plut. Pericles 32. 


THe LEGAL SETTING oF PuaATo’s APOLOGY 171 


It has not escaped notice that Socrates carefully avoids ὦ 
ἄνδρες δικασταί in favor of ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι or ὦ ἄνδρες. It is 
only in his speech to those who had voted for his acquittal that he 
employs the regular form of address, adding (40a) by way of 
explanation that they may rightly be called δικασταί: ὑμᾶς γὰρ 
δικαστὰς καλῶν ὀρθῶς ἂν καλοίην. This remark has given rise to 
the view that Socrates avoided calling the jurymen δικασταί 
because, owing to their prejudice, they did not deserve the name. 
But Socrates could not have known in advance that the jurymen 
would prove unworthy of their name; for Xenophon has said 
expressly (Mem. iv. 4. 4) that he could easily have secured an 
acquittal had he been willing to adopt the usual method of per- 
suasion. And the smallness of the majority against him’ supports 
Xenophon’s view. Moreover, on several occasions, in reminding 
them of their duty to consider only the justice of his pleas, he 
virtually calls them jurymen.’ 

Schanz (p. 75) holds that Plato is himself responsible for this 
feature of the defense. His intention was to indicate in advance 
his opinion of the verdict. But this theory will not bear close 
scrutiny. Doubtless the official title of the jurymen was δικασταί 
and it was customary to address them as ὦ ἄνδρες Sixactal. But 
in extant speeches there is the greatest possible diversity. Isocrates 
in some speeches refrained entirely from using any form of 
address.. In Andocides’ defense against a charge of impiety, 
preferred in the same year as Socrates’ trial, the official title occurs 
but once; elsewhere with a single exception we find ὦ ἄνδρες." We 
also find Andocides, Aeschines, and Deinarchus employing ὦ 
᾿Αθηναῖοι in addressing the dicasts; nor is this strange, since no 
hard and fast line was drawn between deliberative and judicial 
bodies in Athens.‘ The assembly occasionally exercised judicial 
functions and the jury was but a convenient committee of the 
assembly and might be addressed as ὦ ᾿Αθηναῖοι quite as properly 
as the ἐκκλησιασταί, Under these circumstances it is hard to 


1 But 281 out of 601 voted for his conviction: Plato Apol.36A; Diog. Laert. ii. 41. 

3 αὐτὸ δὸ τοῦτο σκοπεῖν καὶ τούτῳ τὸν νοῦν προσέχειν, εἰ δίκαια λέγω ἣ μή. δικαστοῦ 
μὲν γὰρ αὔτη ἀρετή (18a); cf. 8ὅ ο. 

8 And. Myst. 136, 187, 4Lipsius Att. Recht, p. 176. 


172 ΒΟΒΕΒΤ J. BONNER 


believe that even the most critical of Socrates’ hearers or of Plato’s 
Athenian readers would attach any importance to the absence of 
the official title. The use of the official title in addressing part 
of the jury after the trial (40a) is on a different basis. Those 
who voted for acquittal are contrasted, not with the whole jury of 
which they formed so considerable a part, but with those who 
voted for conviction. The latter alone are prejudiced and un- 
worthy of the name. A subsequent passage shows that he has 
the adverse jurymen only in mind: εἰ γάρ τις ἀφικόμενος eis “Acdou, 
ἀπαλλαγεὶς τούτων τῶν φασκόντων δικαστῶν εἶναι, εὑρήσει τοὺς 
ἀληθῶς δικαστάς... 

Manifestly these pretended jurymen are those who voted for 
conviction and not the whole jury including those whom he had 
just called δικασταί, 

It is commonly’ stated that there is but slight provision 
for the introduction of evidence in the Apology. But the lack of 
evidence is apparent rather than real. As a matter of fact all of 
Socrates’ assertions are corroborated. It is true that no docu- 
mentary, and but little testimonial, evidence is provided; but full 
use is made of other equally effective means of corroboration. On 
two occasions (20 6, 32d) testimonial evidence is promised, though 
we are nowhere told that it was actually produced. Menzel, 
(p- 6), however, finds in Xenophon’s Apol. 22° an indication that 
Socrates did produce witnesses. Owing to the fact that the prac- 
tice of reducing testimony to writing was not yet in vogue, it is 
easy to see how witnesses might properly give their evidence at 
the end of the address in the form of a more or less elaborate 
statement. Thus the distinction between a corroborative witness 
and an advocate (συνήγορος) might practically disappear. The 
absence from the text of the customary indication of the intro- 
duction of evidence, though unusual, is not without parallel in the 


1 Apol. 40e. In Xenophon’s Apology Socrates uses 3 ἄνδρες, and if the addition of 
᾿Αθηναῖοι by Plato has any significance, it may be that he wishes his readers to feel that 
the justification of Socrates’ career is addressed to the entire body of citizens; and this 
would be particularly fitting in view of the fact that to the general prejudice the un- 
favorable verdict was almost entirely due (Apol. 28; 28a). 

2 Poehlmann Sitzungsber. ἃ. K. Akad. ἃ. Wiss. zu Milnchen, 1906, p. 97; Gomperz 
op. cit. II, p. 81; Schanz, p. 75. 

8 ἐρρήθη μεν δῆλον ὅτι τούτων πλείω ὑπό τε αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν συναγορευόντων φίλων αὐτῷ. 


THe LEGAL SETTING or Puato’s APOLOGY 173 


extant speeches." Gomperz’s explanation (p. 81) that Plato was 
anxious to avoid the appearance of conforming strictly to the 
regular practice in matters of detail is borne out by other con- 
siderations, as will appear.’ Now, apart from these two cases 
involving the content of the oracle given to Chaerephon and the 
incident regarding Leon of Salamis, there were surprisingly few 
matters of fact involved in the case. arly in his speech (19d) 
Socrates adverts to the assertions of his detractors that he had 
engaged in physical speculations, and in denying this charge he 
relies entirely upon the personal knowledge of the jury for corrob- 
oration. He asks those of the jurors who had listened to his 
conversations from time to time to inform the others that he had 
never used such language as that attributed to him in the Clouds 
of Aristophanes. This means of corroboration was frequently 
resorted to in the Athenian courts, and according to the Orators 
a litigant could have no better witnesses than the men who sat on 
the jury.” On more than one occasion‘ Socrates denies that he 
taught for pay. Obviously he could not prove this in any prac- 
ticable way, nor did he need to do so. The onus probandi was 
clearly on the other side and the fact (19c) that they had not 
produced a single witness to prove that he ever solicited, or 
accepted, pay is ample corroboration of his denial. So also his 
assertion (33a) that he never taught anyone privately required 
no support in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 

In regard to the charge that he had corrupted the youth, he 
does not rest content with drawing attention to the failure of the 
prosecution to produce any of those he was alleged to have cor- 
rupted or any of their relatives, but he challenges his accusers 
(33 d ff.) to take part of his time to introduce such evidence if 
they had overlooked it. This challenge is less formal than those 
which appear in Demosthenes, but it has its counterpart in the 

1 Blass Att. Bered. III. i, p. 182. | 

310 may be objected that all evidence was required to be in writing. But Andocides 
(Myst. 14), who was tried for impiety in the same year as Socrates, examined one of 
his witnesses in court, and in Wasps 956ff., in the mock trial of a dog for stealing a 
cheese, the cheese-scraper was produced as a witness and questioned in court. Fora 
full statement of the arguments in favor of this view, see the writer’s Evidence in 


Athenian Courts (1904), pp. 46 ff.; cf. Thalheim Berl. phil. Woch. XXV, p. 1575. 
8 Dem. 21. 18; 34. 50; 44. 66; Ant. 6. 25. 4Apol.19d; Slc; 88 a. 


174 Rosert J. BONNER 


numerous oral challenges in Antiphon and Andocides.' In the 
Orators (cf. Demos. 45, 59-61) considerable stress is laid upon 
the evidentiary value of challenges. 

But there were some incidents in the career of Socrates that 
were 80 well known that it was superfluous to refer even to the 
personal knowledge of the jury for corroboration. For example, 
no one would call in question his distinguished military services 
at Potidaea, Amphipolis, and Delium, or his refusal to permit the 
assembly to proceed improperly with the case against the generals 
in command at Arginusae (28 e, 326). And it is worth while to 
note that Plato was careful to distinguish such incidents from the 
refusal of Socrates to arrest Leon (32c ff.). This latter was not 
a public refusal and obviously required proof. 

In this connection it must not be forgotten that Socrates would 
gladly have produced a number of other witnesses had he known 
their names.” Who can doubt that under his skilful questioning 
the slanderers who were responsible for the general prejudice 
against him would have proved excellent witnesses in his favor? 
Socrates’ reference to these unknown slanderers has been entirely 
misunderstood. The fact that he virtually calls them κατήγοροι has 
created the impression that somehow or other he contemplated their 
being parties to the suit; but a later passage shows that he really 
regarded them as witnesses: εἰ γὰρ δὴ ἔγωγε τῶν νέων, τοὺς μὲν 
διαφθείρω. . . . χρῆν δήπον. . . . νυνὶ αὐτοὺς ἀναβαίνοντας ἐμοῦ 
κατηγορεῖν καὶ τιμωρεῖσθαι.---88 d. 

καὶ (ἄλλονε) πολλοὺς ἐγὼ ἔχω ὑμῖν εἰπεῖν, ὧν τινα ἐχρῆν μάλιστα 
μὲν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ παρασχέσθαι Μέλητον μάρτυρα.---8ὃ4 α. So 
long as oral evidence was allowed, the confusion between an ad- 
verse witness and an accuser was as natural as the confusion 
between a favorable witness and an advocate suggested above. 

It thus appears that Plato has been by no means remiss in 
procuring corroboration for statements of fact wherever it was 


11,6; vi. 24; Myst. 23, 26, 35, 55. Schanz adds some instances from other Orators 
without noticing the evidentiary value of these challenges. 

2He admits that he knew the name of one, Aristophanes the comedian, but his 
accusations were so ridiculous that Socrates needed only to refer to the jurymen as 
witnesses that his teachings bore no resemblance whatever to those of the Aristophanic 
Socrates. 


Tue LEGAL SETTING oF PLaTO’s APOLOGY 175 


required. Would Lysias have done more had he written a speech 
for Socrates, as he is alleged to have done?’ Fortunately we 
are not entirely without means for attempting an answer to this 
question. The case of the cripple for whom Lysias wrote a speech 
to be used at a δοκιμασία before the senate is from the lawyer’s 
standpoint strikingly similar to that of Socrates in many ways.’ 
The cripple was a well-known character about the town. He, too, 
had been accused of disseminating evil influences among those 
who congregated in his shop. He doubtless was a privileged 
person, but his sharp tongue had made him the object of φθόνος 
and all his actions were misrepresented.’ In the presentation of 
the cases of these two men there are some striking similarities. 
No defendant in the extant speeches ever dared to flout the jury 
as did the cripple;‘ nor is the tone of his speech paralleled any- 
where except in the Platonic Apology.’ In the matter of eviden- 
tiary apparatus Lysias’ treatment of his case is quite inferior to 
that of Plato. He relies entirely on the personal knowledge of 
the jury and the evidence of their eyesight (xxiv. 14). Plato, on 
the other hand, not only uses testimonial evidence, challenges, and 
the knowledge of the jury, but presents the most notable example 
of effective interrogation of an opponent in court. The reluctance 
to answer damaging questions and the eager haste to reply when 
the question seems favorable are admirably brought out; and inter- 
vention by the jury to compel a litigant to answer his opponent’s 
question is illustrated nowhere else in Athenian legal literature.° 
The whole incident is much more dramatic and effective than 
Lysias’ mechanical interrogation of Eratosthenes, and the corn- 
dealers.’ And so one may well doubt whether Lysias’ proposed 
defense of Socrates was superior in the matter of evidence to the 


1Cicero De orat. i. 54 repeats the story that Lysias offered Socrates a speech 
composed in his best style; cf. Diog. Laert. fi. 40. 


2 Lys. xxiv. In other cases of δοκιμασία Lysias made as free use of witnesses as in 
cases before the regular courts; cf. orat. xvi. 


8Of. Apol. 18d, 28a with Lys. xxiv. 1, 3 and Apol. 88 ἃ ff. with Lys. xxiv. 18-20. 
4 Lys. xxiv. 20; cf. Apol. 30 e, 36 c. 

5 Apol. 31 d, cf. Lys. xxiv. 18; Apol. 36d, cf. Lys. xxiv. 13. 

6 Anol. 27 c, cf. 25d; Dem. lvi. 10. 

7 Lys. xii. 26; xxii. 5. 


176 RoBERT J. BONNER 


Apology of Plato, even if it smacked more of the lawyer than of 
the philosopher, as Diogenes supposed.’ 

In this connection it may be noted that Plato’s use of tech- 
nical language conforms sufficiently to the usage of the lawyers 
to be easily understood. But by using ἔγκλημα, ἀντωμοσία, and 
avrvypady indifferently for indictment he gives the impression 
that he is not more discriminating in his use of legal termi- 
nology than a layman like Socrates might be expected to be. For 
ἀντιγραφή properly means the defendant’s written rejoinder, and 
Hyperides’ furnishes the only example in the Orators of its use 
for indictment or sworn statement of claim. Plato’s whole aim is 
to avoid technicalities where possible so as to present an effective 
picture of Socrates λεγόμενον τοῖς ἐπιτυχοῦσιν ὀνόμασιν (17 c). 
But in spite of the alleged extempore character of the speech, 
stereotyped topics and appeals are not altogether lacking, though 
they are introduced in such a way as to give the impression of 
naturalness. Such are: the statement that he now appears in the 
court for the first time, the promise to tell the “whole truth and 
nothing but the truth,” the reference to the jurors’ oath and the 
requests for a quiet hearing.’ So, too, the skilful way in which 
he seeks (20 ὁ ff.) to establish the credibility of Chaerephon, the 
recipient of the oracle from Delphi, by dilating upon his pro- 
nounced democratic opinions which forced him to go into banish- 
ment during the rule of the Thirty, is in line with the common 
practice of the speech-writers in seeking to gain sympathy for a 
client or confidence in a witness by drawing attention to his 
unswerving support of the democratic constitution. 

The customary reference to services rendered to the state by 
the defendant seems at first sight to be lacking, if we except his 
reminding the jury (80 6) that his condemnation will be their 
irreparable loss. But we have here simply another instance of 
his resigning the form and gaining the substance. For nothing 

1 Diog. Laert. fi. 40. δηλαδὴ γὰρ ἣν (ὁ λόγος) τὸ πλέον δικανικὸς ἣ ἐμφιλόσοφος. 


2Eux. 31; cf. Att. Process, Ὁ. 831. 


8The appeals for silence are unusually frequent. This is due to the fact that 
Socrates was continually interrupted in his speech and Plato is attempting to repro- 
duce this feature of the real trial by scattering these appeals throughout the speech; 
Xen. Apol, 14,15; Plato, Apol. 17 ἃ, 20 e, 21 a, 26 ὃ, 27 ὃ. We. 


THe LeaaL Setrina or Puato’s APOLOGY 177 


in the way of appeal could be more effectual than the seemingly 
casual, but really subtle, references to his military services, par- 
ticularly at Potidaea and Delium.’ 

Throughout the whole speech Plato has chosen to introduce 
his evidentiary matter and to make his appeals in an unobtrusive 
manner. For careful adherence to the technical practice of the 
speech-writers would have been entirely out of keeping with 
Socrates’ apology (17 b) for departing from the style of speaking 
regnlarly heard in court. 

Considerable ingenuity has been exercised in reconciling 
Socrates’ first suggestion of a mina as an alternative penalty 
with his final suggestion that thirty minae would be a suitable 
penalty. As this is the only extant speech dealing with counter 
penalties,’ it is impossible to find parallels for withdrawing a 
suggested penalty and substituting another. One cannot but 
feel, however, that there was nothing in Athenian practice to 
prevent such a proceeding. 


THe UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


1 Apol. 28 e; cf. Sympos. 219 e, 2214; Laches 181 ὃ. 

2Geisler (Blatter 7. Gymn. Schulw. XLII, p. 38 ff.) cites the recent literature on 
the subject. He proposes to strike out the latter part of sec. 88a. His reasons are 
not based upon legal considerations. 


THE SUBSTANTIVE SI-CLAUSE 
By H. C. Nurrine 


The subject of the substantive si-clause can be approached 
most readily through a consideration of the conditional periods 
in which st appears with a correlative. When the apodosis of 
such periods precedes, the correlative is apt to have restrictive 
force; 9. g.: 


Cic. De off. iii. 8. 18: id habet hanc, ut opinor, sententiam; cum vir- 
tute congruere semper, cetera autem, quae secundum naturam essent, ita 
legere, δὲ ea virtuti non repugnarent. 

Cic. P. Marcell. 8. 25: sed tum id audirem, δὲ tibi soli viveres aut si 
tibi etiam soli natus esses. 

Cic. Ad Aft. xii. 88. 2: tu, quoniam necesse nihil est, sic scribes ali- 
quid, δὲ vacabis. 

Cic. Orat. 58. 197: quae (sc. quadrandae orationis industria) latebit 
60 mugis, si et verborum et sententiarum ponderibus utemur:' 


More interesting but less frequently noticed are the conditional 
periods of this sort in which the correlative of 81 is a phrase in 
the ablative case; e. g.: 


Caecina apud Cic. Ad fam. vi. 7.4: sed tamen ego filio dixeram, 
librum tibi . . . . ea condictone daret, st reciperes te correcturum. 

Cic. P. Sest. 10. 24: foedus fecerunt cum tribuno pl. palam, ut ab eo 
provincias acciperent quas ipsi vellent ... . ea lege, st ipsi prius tribuno 
pl. adflictam .... rem publicam tradidissent. 

Cic. De invent. ii. 32. 99: postea (sc. oportebit) demonstrare potuisse 
vitari; hac ratione provideri potuisse, δὲ hoc aut illud fecisset. 

Plaut. Bacch. 447, 448: hocine hic pacto potest 

inhibere imperium magister, 8ὲ ipsus primus vapulet? 


That these ablative phrases are correlatives of 81 is established 


by three circumstances: (a) the sentences, as they stand, are 
normal conditional periods; i. e., their two clauses are related as 


1 This use of eo with a comparative as a correlative of si is not generally noted. 
Other cases are Οἷς. De orat. ii. 52. 209, P. Rab. Post. 17. 46, Tusc. disp. ii. 26. 64; 80 
also hoc with a comparative, Cic. In Caecil. 2.4. Of. eo (without a comparative), 
Plaut. Poen. 1194. 

(CLassicaL PaILo.oey III, April, 198] 178 ν 


THE SUBSTANTIVE Si-CLAUSE 179 


protasis and apodosis; (b) the ablative phrases express manner, 
and, with their modifiers, have the force of demonstrative adverbs ;' 
(c) the ablative phrases make explicit what otherwise would be 
implicit in 81; consequently they are somewhat pleonastic— if 
omitted, the syntax of the clause to which they belong would not 
suffer, and the meaning of the sentence would still be clear enough.’ 

It is, however, cases of this sort that pave the way ultimately 
for the use of st in substantive clauses which serve merely as an 
expansion and explanation of a noun or pronoun. At first sight, 
some such examples may seem very like the sentences just dis- 
cussed, but closer inspection will show that the word or phrase 
expanded by the sz-clause lacks the qualifications essential to cor- 
relation with s2,; 6. g.: 


Cic. P. Rab. Post. 10. 28: nam... . hace una ratio a rege proposita 
Postumo est servandae pecuniae, si curationem et quasi dispensationem 
regiam suscepisset. 

Livy xxi. 10. 4: iuvenem flagrantem cupidine regni viamque unam 
ad id cernentem, si .... succinctus armis .... vivat,.... ad exer- 
citus misistis. 

In these sentences haec una ratio and vium unam are obviously 
not correlatives of si; for (a) they have not the force of demon- 
strative adverbs; (δ) they do not express something that other- 
wise would be implicit in sz—their omission would wreck the 
sentence, and (c) the clauses of which they form a part do not 
sustain the relation of apodosis to the following sz-clause, but are 
independent statements. To these statements the si-clause is 
appended as a tag explaining and expanding haec una ratio and 
viam unam, i.e., it is used as a mere substantive clause.” The 

1 To cover examples in which ai has not pure conditional force, (a) and (0) would 
sometimes need interpretation or expansion; e.g., in the case of Oaes, Bell. Afr. 86: 
ante oppidum instructos (sc. elephantos) constituit, id hoc consilio, si posset Vergilius 

. ἃ pertinacia deduci. The choice of the correlative hoc consilio is an interesting 


evidence of the final force of the subjunctive si-clause after verbs of action and effort; 
cf. University of Cal. Publications, Classical Philology I, p. 76. 

3 As, e.g., Οἷα, De off. i. 11. 34. 

3 The mood in these substantive si-clauses seems to call for no special treatment. 
The great prevalence of the subjunctive is due to the large number of cases in which 
there is obliquity partial or total, and to the fact that a substantive si-clause dependent 
on a past tense is apt to carry the futurum in praeterito idea. 


180 H. C. Nurrme 


close parallel to the substantive uf-clause may be seen by com- 
paring the passage last cited with the following: 


Livy xxxvi. 27.8: haec una via omnibus ad salutem visa est, μέ in 
fidem se permitterent Romanorum.' 


So also in the following sentences: 


Cic. Ad Q. fr. iii. 1.1: totum in eo est,. . . . tectorium ut concinnum 
sti. 

Cic. Ad Ait. ii. 22.5: unum illud tibi persuadeas velim, omnia mihi 
fore explicata, si te videro; sed totum est in eo, δὲ ante (sc. te videro) 
quam ille ineat magistratum. 


The range of expressions that may be expanded by substantive 
si-clauses is quite considerable. Some very clear-cut examples 
occur when the phrase contains a numeral greater than one; e. g.: 


Cic. De invent. ii. 43. 126: quo in loco iudici demonstrandum est, 
quid iuratus sit, quid sequi debeat; duabus de causis iudicem dubitare 
oportere—si aut scriptum sit obscure aut neget aliquid adversarius. 

Cic. De leg. ii. 20.49: nam illi quidem his verbis docebant; tribus 
modis sacris adstringi—aut hereditate, aut δὲ maiorem partem pecuniae 
capiat, aut (si maior pars pecuniae legata est) δὲ inde quippiam ceperit.? 

Cic. De off. i. 20. 67: id autem ipsum cernitur in duobus— si et solum 
id, quod honestum sit, bonum iudices et ab omni animi perturbatione 
liber sis.’ 

Other cases follow: 


Cic. De off. ii. 12. 43: quamquam praeclare Socrates hanc viam ad 
gloriam proximam ... . dicebat ease, st quis id ageret, ut qualis haberi 
vellet, talis esset. 

Cic. Ad fam. vii. 10. 4: sic enim tibi persuadeas velim, unum mihi 
esse solacium, quare facilius possim pati te esse sine nobis, δὲ tibi esse id 
emolumento sciam. 


1Cic. P. Sest. 65. 137 provides a somewhat similar case with an infinitive: haec est 
una via....etlaudis... . et honoris, a bonis viris .... laudari et diligi, etc. 


2 In this sentence the co-ordination of the noun hereditate with the two si-clauses is 
additional evidence of the subetantival character of the latter; however, the reading 
is not absolutely certain. The very loose structure of Plaut. Bacch. 953-55 leaves it 
somewhat uncertain whether or not the si-clause is substantive, but the case is worth 
quoting at any rate as an example of remarkable variety of expression : 

llio tria fuisee audivi fata, quae illi forent exitio: 


Signum ex arce si rertiset: alterum etiamst Trotli mors: 
Tertium, quom portae Phrygiae limen superum scinderetur. 


8Other cases with such numerals are Cic. De orat. iii. 43. 170 (tribus ex rebus), 
De fin. ii. 5. 15 (duobus modis), De off. ii. 9. 31 (ex tribus his), Lael. 17. 64 (haec duo). 


THE SUBSTANTIVE S1-CLAUSE 181 


Cic. Tusc. disp. i. 46.111: ἐπα suspicto intolerabili dolore cruciat, δὲ 
optnamur eos, quibus orbati sumus, esse cum aliquo sensu in iis malis, 
quibus volgo opinantur. 

.Cic. Post red. in sen. 4.8; P. Lentulus .... hoc lumen consulatus 
sui fore putavit, ss me... . rei publicae reddidisset. 

Cic. Acad. ii. 45. 188: testatur .... qui summum bonum dicant 
id esse, 8 vacemus omni molestia, eos invidiosum nomen voluptatis 
fugere, sed ....' 

The recognition of this substantive use of the s7-clause throws 
light here and there upon passages that otherwise cause perplexity 
and confusion; e. g.: 

Tac. Annal.i.11: at patres, quibus unus metus, si intellegere vide- 

rentur, in questus lacrimas vota effundi. 
Tacitus is here describing the farce enacted between Tiberius and 
the senate—he professing not to desire imperial power, they 
urging it upon him. Tacitus means to say that the senators hesi- 
tated at no act of servility, their one dread (unus metus) being 
the betrayal of their comprehension of the true inwardness of the 
situation (sz intellegere viderentur); i.e., the st-clause is used 
substantively as an expansion and explanation of unus metus. 
Furneaux, however, in his note on this passage, wanders off after 
Draeger, finding an analogy for metus si in miror si and like 
expressions, and finally elaborates an interpretation which seems 
to me to miss the very point that Tacitus is trying to bring out, 
namely, the servility of the senators.’ A case of this sort is not 
to be confused with one like the following: 

Tac. Annal. ii. 42: ille ignarus doli vel, δὲ intellegere crederetur, vim 
metuens in urbem properat. 

Here the s7-clause is a normal protabis, the apodosis being bound 
up in wim, i. e., ‘‘fearing violence (would befall him), if it were 


1 See also Cic. In Verr. 11.1.1. 8 (e0), P. Plane. 38. 98 (e0), Ad fam. iv. 14. 1 (60), 
Tac. Agr. 24 (id); Cic. De invent. i. 50. 94 (horum), P. Sex. Rose. 17. 49 (hoc), Acad. 
ii. 27. 86 (hoc), Tusc. disp. iv. 28. 60 (haec); De invent. ii. 7. 24 (illud); Ad fam. ii. 
4. 2 (una re), De off. ii. 8. 27 (hac una re); De fin. iv. 12. 28 (uno modo), Plaut. Zp. 
862 (uno modo), Cic. Ad Att. xii. 6. 2 (uno ec. modo), Pliny Zp. iv. 18.7 (uno reme- 
die). The exact sense of the Suetonian passages in which sub condicione appears, is 
somewhat uncertain (see Jul. 68, Claud. 24, Vitell. 6); a strict grammatical analysis 
would probably bring the si-clauses under this heading. In all the above cases the 
si-clause follows; the reverse order is very rare, 6. g., Cic. De div. ii. 40. 88 (ea res). 


2Cf. chap. 7: at Romae ruere in servitutem consules patres eques. 


182 H. C. Nuttine 


thought that he understood.” In the case first cited the si-clause 
sets forth the thing feared; here it tells under what conditions 
something was feared. For the sake of further contrast, the fol- 
lowing sentence also may be cited in this connection: 


Tac, Annal. xvi. 5: constitit plerosque equitum .... obtritos, et 
alios . . . . morbo exitiabili correptos. quippe gravior inerat metus, δὲ 
‘spectaculo defuissent. 


Here the analysis of the st-clause might be doubtful, were it not 
for the context, which seems to show that an apodosis is to be 
supplied. The reference is to Nero’s literary performances, and 
the meaning apparently is that the knights risked death by their 
constant attendance; but they were possessed by a more urgent 
dread (of the consequences) if they failed to put in an appearance. 

A second illustration of the utility of recognizing the substan- 
tive use of the sz-clause is found in the interpretation of 

Livy v. 8. 8-9: nec Veientem satis cohibere .... nec... . tueri se 
ab exteriore poterant hoste. una spes erat, si ex maioribus castris sub- 
ventretur. 


In this sentence Livy manifestly means to say that the one hope 
(una spes) of the Romans was the coming of help from the main 
camp (st ex maioribus castris subveniretur); i. e., the si-clause 
expands and explains una spes. But Weissenborn, in his note, 
says an apodosis is to be supplied— ‘die Bedingung bezieht sich 
auf das, was gehofft wird, naml. das Lager zu verteidigen.” If 
spes were not modified by una this suggestion would work very 
well— ‘there was hope (that the position might be held), if help 
came from the main camp.” But una is here and must be 
reckoned with. If the reader can include it, and, at the same 
time, find an apodosis for the s7-clause in the words supplied, and 
yet extract a satisfactory sense from the passage, his success will 
be greater than mine.’ But Weissenborn doubtless had no idea 


11 should be noted that the conditions are not met by merely supplying such 
words as W. suggests, i. e., ‘*‘There was one hope (that their position might be held) 
if help came from the main camp.”’ For, with this amplification, ‘‘hope’’ may still 
have the meaning ‘‘chance,”’ and ‘if’? be understood in the sense ‘‘ namely if;”’ i.e., 
this amplification does not preclude interpreting the si-clause as substantive, and 
therefore allows a satisfactory meaning for the sentence. It is when the attempt is 
made to find an apodosis for the si-clause in the words supplied that difficulty arises. 


THE SUBSTANTIVE Si-CLAUSE 183 


of setting us such a problem. The fact that his note is headed 
spes erat si (not una spes erat si), and that he cites xxxii. 2. 8 
as parallel (there spes has no modifier), would seem to indicate 
that he did not notice una. Had he done so, probably he would 
not have written so perverse a note. I add two similar cases in 
which the st-clause is used substantively: 

Caes. B, G. iii. 5: ad Galbam adcurrunt atque unam esse spem salu- 
tis docent, δὲ eruptione facta extremum auxilium expertrentur. 

Livy i. 81. 7: vulgo iam homines eum statum rerum, qui sub Numa 

rege fuerat requirentes, unam opem aegris corporibus relictam, δὲ pax 
veniaque ab diis impetrata esset, credebant. 
The substantive si-clause is of course much rarer than the corre- 
sponding ut- or quod-clause, but the value of its recognition in the 
matter of interpretation entitles it to far more consideration than 
it has yet received. 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 


ON THE PRONOMINAL USE OF ὁ αὐτός IN PLATO 
By J. ELMORE 


One of the questions raised by a study of Plato’s use of 6 aurds 
is whether in certain passages this phrase has not a purely pro- 
nominal function, standing as a pronoun of reference (with the 
added idea of identity) for a preceding substantive. It is clear 
that this usage is not in itself improbable. In English ‘‘the same,” 
though for. the most used adjectively or substantively, is often a 
pronoun, as in Browning, The Ring and the Book I. 1263, ‘“‘He 
bows the head, . . . . Writes some three brief lines, signs and 
seals the same.” This use of ‘“‘the same” as a strengthened per- 
sonal pronoun of reference occurs in all periods of the language 
and is frequent in our modern speech. Even more common in 
this construction is the German derselbe. ‘“Fruchtbare Umge- 
staltung einer Theorie,” says Steinthall, “ist nicht mdglich ohne 
die griindlichste Kritik derselben.” In Latin the usage has a 
double aspect. It is implied whenever zdem represents a previ- 
ously expressed subject with a second predicate (cf. Lane, Lat. 
Gram. 2371), but it appears still more clearly when the oblique 
cases of idem are employed for the corresponding forms of 1s. 

According to Meader (Lat. Pron., pp. 195, 196) this latter 
idiom occurs as early as Cornelius Nepos. Later “it found favor 
with the historians, chiefly during the period of the Silver Latin.” 
Two examples may be quoted—Tac. An. i. 23.2: ut pars militum 
gladiatores qui 6 servitio Blaesi erant, pars ceteram eiusdem 
familiam vincirent; Lucan Phars. 510: O faciles dare summa 
deos, eademque tueri difficiles. The idiom is thus apparent in 
case of “the same,” derselbe, and idem, and it seems not improb- 
able that it may exist also in the case of ὁ αὐτός. | 

A nearer analogy is that of ὁ προειρημένος, which also in later 
authors becomes pronominal (as Polyb. i. 9. 3: γήμας δὲ τὴν 
θυγατέρα τοῦ προειρημένον ... . ἐξάγει στρατείαν ὡς ἐπὶ τοὺς Bap- 
βάρους), and which illustrates the facility with which adjective 
(CuassrcaL Pario.oey IIT, April, 1900] 184 


ON THE PRONOMINAL USE OF ὁ αὐτός IN PLATO 185 


and substantive expressions assume this character. It is in fact 
one of the tendencies of language in general. 

In addition to these analogies is the admitted but compara- 
tively rare and little recognized use of ὁ αὐτός to represent (like 
tdem) a subject with a second predicate. This usage is illustrated 
in Callim. Epigr. 39. 2, by the αὑτή of the Codex Palatinus,' in 
defense of which Schneider quotes several other examples, among 
them, Thucyd. i. 23; iii. 47; Plut. Timol. 18; Orph. Lithic. 399; 
Orph. Hymn. iii. 8; xiii. 8. Aside from these examples an 
illustration of the construction is found in Thucyd. iii. 21. 10: 
πύργοι ἦσαν μεγάλοι καὶ ἰσοπλατεῖς τῷ τείχει, διήκοντες ἔς τε τὸ ἔσω 
μέτωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ καὶ τὸ ἔξω. In this sentence of αὐτοί 
obviously repeats the subject in purely pronominal fashion. 

The question now is, can this usage be extended to the oblique 
cases, so that ὁ αὐτός assumes the functions virtually of a pronoun 
of reference. The presumptions, as we have seen, are in favor of 
this view, and it is further supported by the Platonic examples 
themselves, which may now be considered. 

The first is from an unauthentic dialogue—<Sis. ϑ88α (where 
the writer speaks of the game of odd and even): οὐδὲν ἐπιστάμενοι 
δή που περὶ τῶν apriwy τε καὶ περιττῶν, ὧν ἂν ἐν ταῖς χερσὶ ταῖς 
αὑτῶν ἔχωσιν, ὅμως ἐπιτυγχάνουσι λόγοντες περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν τἀληθῆ. 
This seems to be a conclusive example. There is no question of 
the text, and tried by all the tests, τῶν αὐτῶν stands in the most 
perfect pronominal relation to the preceding substantives. αὐτῶν 
itself would not be more a pronoun. 

Apol. 24a: ταῦτα ἔστι ὑμῖν τἀληθῆ . . . . καίτοι olda σχεδὸν 
ὅτι τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀπεχθάνομαι. 

In this passage τοῖς αὐτοῖς seems to fulfil all the conditions of 
a pronoun of identity. It means precisely the same as the pre- 
ceding ταῦτα, to which it refers, and the context admits of no 
other identity than that of pronoun and antecedent. Under these 
conditions the pronominal relation becomes inevitable. The only 
alternative is to change the text, but this involves setting aside 
the overwhelming authority of the consensus of Band T. Even 


11 am indebted for this reference to Professor H. W. Preacott of the University of 
California. 


186 J. ELMORE 


when this radical step is taken (as in the τοῖς αὐτοῖς τούτοις of 
Schanz and the αὐτοῖς τούτοις of the Oxford edition) the change 
is due to a desire to introduce a pronominal meaning, which τοῖς 
αὐτοῖς itself supplies. 

Rep. 525a: καὶ οὕτω τῶν ἀγωγῶν ἂν εἴη καὶ μεταστρεπτικῶν ἐπὶ 
τὴν τοῦ ὄντος θέαν ἡ περὶ τὸ ἕν μάθησις. ᾿Αλλὰ μέντοι͵ ἔφη, τοῦτό γ᾽ 
ἔχει οὐχ ἥκιστα ἡ περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὄψις. ἅμα γὰρ ταὐτὸν ὡς ὅν τε ὁρῶμεν 
καὶ ὡς ἄπειρα τὸ πλῆθος. This is an interesting and significant 
passage. The text has the highest authority, being the consensus 
of A, the Paris MS of the ninth century, and of the Venetus II 
(O) of the twelfth. As it stands, τὸ αὐτό repeats the preceding 
τὸ ἕν. Over against ‘“‘the intellectual apprehension of the one” 
(to quote the words of Adam) Plato sets ‘‘the visual apprehension 
of the same.” Disregard of this construction has led some editors 
on the authority mainly of & and T (the latter of the fourteenth 
and the former of the fifteenth century) to read avrd. Adam in 
his edition retains τὸ αὐτό, saying in his note, 

I formerly read αὐτό instead of τὸ αὐτό with & and a few inferior MSS. 
αὐτό which Bekker, Schneider, and Stallbaum adopt is easier, but lacking 
in authority; and τὸ αὐτό is-in reality more elegant. The marked anti- 
thesis between ἡ περὶ τὸ ty μάθησις and ἡ περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἄψυς makes it clear 
that τὸ αὐτό means “the same” as that with which ἡ μάθησις was con- 
cerned (viz. τὸ ὃν), and not (as Hermann imagined) “one and the same 
object of vision” (like ταὐτόν presently). 


Thus the pronominal usage in this passage would seem to be 
justified by the sound interpretation of the only MSS tradition of 
the text that is entitled to weight. 

Tim 59c: ὅταν τις ἀναπαύσεως ἕνεκα τοὺς περὶ τῶν ὄντων ἀεὶ 
κατατιθέμενος λόγους, τοὺς γενέσεως πέρι διαθεώμενος εἰκότας ἂμετα- 
μέλητον ἡδονὴν κτᾶται, μέτριον ἂν ἐν τᾷ βίῳ παιδίαν καὶ φρόνιμον 
ποιοῖτο. ταύτῃ δὴ καὶ τὰ νῦν ἐφέντες τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο τῶν αὐτῶν πέρι 
τὰ ἑξῆς εἰκότα δώμεν τῇδε. The τῶν αὐτῶν of the text has no 
variants, and it seems also clear that its function is to represent 
the τοὺς γενέσεως πέρι εἰκότας which goes before. ‘By way of rec- 
reation,” says Plato, “one may find pleasure in plausible theories 
of becoming. Let us therefore in this spirit proceed to discuss 
the probabilities of the same.” 


ON THE PRONOMINAL USE OF ὁ αὐτός IN PLATO 187 


Tim. 66a: διὰ ταύτας τὰς δυνάμεις δριμέα πάντα τοιαῦτα ἐλέχθη, 
τῶν δὲ αὐτῶν προλελεπτυσμένων μὲν ὑπὸ σηπεδόνος, εἰς δὲ τὰς στενὰς 
φλέβας ἐνδυομένων.... In this passage τῶν δὲ αὐτῶν is the 
reading of all the MSS without exception; it coincides in mean- 
ing with the foregoing πάντα, and there can be little doubt, I 
think, of its pronominal force. 

Leg. 797b: φημὶ κατὰ πάσας πόλεις τὸ τῶν παιδιῶν γένος 
ἠγνοῆσθαι σύμπασιν ὅτι κυριώτατόν ἐστι περὶ θέσεως νόμων, ἣ 
μονίμους εἶναι τοὺς τεθέντας ἣ μή. ταχθὲν μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸ .. .. 
ἐᾷ καὶ τὰ σπουδῇ κείμενα νόμιμα μένειν ἡσυχῇ, καινούμενα δὲ 
τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ καινοτομούμενα . . . . τούτου πόλει λώβην οὐκ 
εἶναι μείζω φαῖμεν ἂν ὀρθότατα λέγοντες. The general construc- 
tion of this sentence is somewhat loose, but it is clear that the 
subject, τὸ τῶν παιδιῶν γένος, is first represented by αὐτό, and 
that it is then taken up by the more emphatic τὰ αὐτά. It is 
only on this supposition, as Stallbaum remarks, that the passage 
can be correctly interpreted—quo neglecto sensus loci nullo 
modo percipi recte potest. τὰ αὐτά is thus as pronominal as 
αὐτό itself. 

There are other passages in which I think the same construc- 
tion should be recognized, though there is the possibility of a 
different interpretation. One that requires a word of comment is 
Tim. 54c: ἐκ yap ἑνὸς ἅπαντα πεφυκότα λυθέντων τε τῶν μειζόνων 
πολλὰ σμικρὰ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν συστήσεται, δεχόμενα τὰ προσήκοντα 
ἑαυτοῖς σχήματα. 

Archer-Hind in his edition takes τῶν αὐτῶν to mean “from the 
same elements,” but this can be correct only on the supposition 
that the smaller bodies are identical in composition with the 
larger ones. This can hardly be the case. The whole point of 
the passage is the capacity which three of the primary elements 
possess of being generated into one another. This generation 
takes place when larger bodies are dissolved and smaller ones 
with fewer elements are formed out of them. Stallbaum makes 
τῶν αὐτῶν refer to μειζόνων, rendering, solutisque maioribus multa 
parva ex iisdem exsistent. So also Schneider—et maioribus 
solutis multa parva ex eisdem consistent—and Jowett—‘‘when 
the greater bodies are broken up, many small bodies will spring 


188 J. ELMORE 


out of them.” If this latter interpretation be the right one, τῶν 
αὐτῶν has here also the part of a pronoun. 

The use of ὁ αὐτός to repeat a previous subject with a second 
predicate is rare in Plato. Compare Crat. 8906, Hip. Min. 36%c; 
Rep. 524a; Leg. 967b. 

In the light of this pronominal use of ὁ αὐτός I wish to consider 
the much-discussed passage in Rep. 397): καὶ ἔαν τις ἀποδιδῷ 
πρόπουσαν ἁρμονίαν καὶ ῥυθμὸν τῇ λέξει, ὀλίγου πρὸς THY αὐτὴν 
γίγνεται, λέγειν τῷ ὀρθῶς λέγοντι, καὶ ἐν μιᾷ ἁρμονίᾳ----σμικραὶ γὰρ 
αἱ μεταβολαί----καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐν ῥυθμῷ ὡσαύτως παραπλησίῳ τινι. 

The passage hinges on the interpretation οὗ πρὸς τὴν αὐτήν, 
which the commentators uniformly regard as involving an ellipsis. 
Lewis Campbell suggested an original χορδήν; Schneider would 
supply ἁρμονίαν in view of the following ἐν μιᾷ ἁρμονίᾳ; Ficino 
understood λέξιν; so also Stallbaum, Hartmann (Notae Criticae, 
p. 85), Jowett, and others. In suggesting χορδήν Professor 
Campbell assumes that the phrase πρὸς τὴν αὐτήν became current 
as it stands, and was understood without reference to the immediate 
context, but as it occurs nowhere else this supposition must remain 
mere conjecture. Hartmann also objects to χορδήν on the ground 
that, if it were understood, there would be no need of adding ἐν 
μιᾷ ἁρμονίᾳ. This objection applies with much greater force to 
Schneider’s ἁρμονίαν. The use of πρός also in the sense here 
required is exceedingly difficult, Adam’s reference, ‘‘for the musi- 
cal sense of πρός" to Eur. Alc. 346, being quite beside the point. 
There is the same difficulty in respect to πρὸς τὴν αὐτὴν λέξιν--- 
‘sin the same style” —for which no parallel of any kind has been 
found. (κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν λέξιν, it may be remarked, could be 
defended.) But even granting this use of πρός, the phrase itself 
is hopelessly ambiguous, and whether one word or another be 
supplied, it leaves the sentence as a whole incapable of straight- 
forward interpretation. 

The difficulty in the interpreting of this passage seems to have 
been due to a feeling that τὴν αὐτήν must at all events be an 
adjective, whereas it is in reality a pronoun. It points not forward, 
but backward, and in its reference there is no ambiguity. The 
antecedent substantive can only be λέξει, the meaning being that 


On THE PRONOMINAL USE OF ὁ αὐτός IN PLATO 189 


if one uses properly the style appropriate to a good man, then, 
with respect to the same, correct recitation comes virtually to be 
in one harmony and likewise in a single rhythm. πρός has thus 
its natural meaning, while for the correlation of «at with καὶ δὴ 
καὶ we may compare Leg. 709c. In point of sense the interpreta- 
tion permits of a straightforward statement of the two qualities 
that characterize the style under consideration. The repetition of 
λέξει by τὴν αὐτήν is also in keeping with Plato’s own exuberance 
of expression. 


J. ELMORE 
STanForRD UNIVERSITY 


THE BODLEIAN MS OF THE NOTITIA 
By EvMER TRUESDELL MERRILL 


None of the editors of the so-called Notitia have attempted, so 
far as my knowledge goes, any especial investigation of the MS 
authority for the text in the full extent of that problem. A great 
revolution was, indeed, effected when it was clearly shown that 
the “Publius Victor’”’ tradition was not authentic, and the real 
Notitia was the briefer text that had even come to be regarded as 
a blundering epitome of the other. Yet successive editors of 
more recent time, in their reconstruction of the text, have appar- - 
ently not thought it worth while to act as editors of literary texts 
do act; they have not attempted to make sure that all available 
material of authentic origin and of importance has received due 
consideration at their hands; some of them have even neglected 
important witnesses to the text that lay in the very libraries from 
which they have used other manuscripts. Preller, for example 
(Die Regionen der Stadt Rom, Jena, 1846), used the codex 
Vindobonensis 162 (olim 328), but knew nothing of Vindobonensis 
3416, which represents yet another authoritative source, nor yet 
of Vindobonenses 3102 and 3103, which, with other MSS, repre- 
sent yet a third. Urlichs (Codex urbis Romae topographicus, 
Warzburg, 1871) cited the readings of codex Monacensis 794, a 
copy of the lost Speyer MS, but apparently made no attempt, even 
by the comparison of another copy known to him to be in the same 
library (Monac. 10291), to determine with greater precision the 
readings of the important vanished archetype. Even Jordan 
( Topographie der Stadt Rom im Alterthum, Vol. II, Berlin, 1871) 
disregards the representatives of the Speyer MS in the constitution 
of his text of the Nofitia, though he is aware that there are such 
in existence. 

One of the essential things for any further critical study of 
the text of the Notitia would appear to consist in an attempt to 
find other important MSS of that document than those already 
(CLAssIcAL PHrLo.toay ITI, April, 1908] 190 


THE BopLeIaN MS or THE Norit1a 191 


known to be in existence. As no such systematic search appears 
to have been made by anyone, the prospect of some useful dis- 
covery in that direction is by no means hopeless. Furthermore, 
the text of the Notitia in the lost Speyer MS might well be more 
precisely determined, by a comparison of the several extant copies 
of it, most of which, at any rate, appear to have been made with 
some degree of care. Tocontribute a trifle toward that end is the 
main purpose of this paper. 

Among the MSS in the Bodleian library at Oxford is one 
(Canonicianus lat. misc. 378) which is a copy of the lost Speyer 
MS, containing near the end (f. 170 recto), but before the 
Demensuratio prouinciarum and the excerpt from Gregory 
Nazianzen, the same subscription as cod. Monac. 99 antea 
Victorianus (Parthey-Pinder), or a. n. 794 (Urlichs), viz.: 


Exemplata est hec cosmographia, que Scoti dicitur, cum picturis ex 
uetustissimo codice quem habui ex Spirensi bibliotheca, anno Domini 
m. cccc, xxxvj mense Ianuario; Dum ego Petrus Donatus, Dei paciencia, 
episcopus Paduanus, uice sanctissimi domini Eugenii Pape iiii. generali 
Basiliensi concilio praesiderem. 

This Bodleian codex was noted by Parthey and Pinder in 
their edition of the Itinerarium Antonini Augusti et Hierosoly- 
mitanum (Berlin, 1848), and acollation of the Notitia dignitatum 
part of it is given by Seeck in his edition of that document 
(Berlin, 1876). I have collated it for the Notitia of the city of 
Rome; but for the sake of economy of space I give below only 
the readings which appear to differ from those of its Munich twin 
(see above), trusting for these, though with great hesitation, the 
apparatus criticus of Urlichs, since I have had no opportunity to 
collate that MS for myself, and foresee no such opportunity in the 
near future. If I mistake not, this Munich MS (Urlichs’ N) is 
the only copy of the lost Spirensis from which the readings of 
the Notitia have been published. Reports from the collation of 
other documents (especially the Itinerarium Antonini and Notitia 
dignitatum) contained in extant copies of the Spirensis appear to 
indicate, as I have said, that a number of these copies were made 
with tolerable accuracy; and therefore, from the comparison of 
more, or all, of them, it ought to be possible to determine with 


192 ELMER TRUESDELL MERRILL 


considerable precision the text of the Notttia as contained in 
Spirensis. It accordingly appears advisable to reserve critical 
comment on that matter until more of these collations are in hand. 
If no one takes up the task before me, I am inclined, after the 
completion of certain other work now in progress, to undertake 
the preparation of a critical edition of the Nofitia and Curtosum, 
based upon a new recension of the material. Meanwhile I should 
be extremely grateful to any scholar who will call my attention to 
MSS of either document not thus far known. 

The following list contains, then, the readings of the Notitia 
in cod. Canonicianus lat. misc. 378 (0) that appear to differ from 
the readings of cod. Monacensis a. n. 794 (N) as given by Urlichs 
in his Codex urbis Romae topographicus, to which are the refer- 
ences (by page and line): 


Ῥ.8 1 gloriosior} clariosior p.7 2 samdaliarium 
2 prima (et sic saepe dein- 4 uiginti duorum 
ceps) 7 faustine 
5 uitriarium suburam 
6 carruces 8 dafnidis 
balneum (et sic saepe 10 lacus .lxxum. 
deinceps) 11 esquilie 
7 antiochiani 18 ampitheatrum castrense 
8 arcum add. 
10 parle! . p-9 2 aediculae XV. om. 
es 8 balinea LXXV. om. 
lacus .]xxxiiii. lacus 


4 pistrina .xii. 


13 cohortes uigulum 6 mamurttem plumbeam 
p.5 1 africe dei 

3 nucam auream 7 puniculum 

4 II.) duo ortos 
tria milia -DC- 8 diocletianas et constan- 
horrea xiiii ; tinas 

9 presentissum mucoragum 9 cohort .iii. uigilug 
scolam uici .xun. edicule .xun. 

10 titianas 10 uicomagistri .xulii. 

11 liuii 11 lacos .]xxiii. 

12 domus sexaginta 18 cohort .uii. uigili 


13 balnea octoginta 15 gyptiani 


THe Bopie1an MS or roe Noriria 


p.11 2 ortos 
4 millia 
domus 
laici in laci corr. 
6 rostra tria 
9 coclydem 
12 miliariu aureti iulie tem- 
plum castoy ueste 
Ῥ.18 1 unguentarium 

2 triginta quatuor 

8 edicule .xxuiiii. 

xluni. 

6 stabula numero quatuor 
factiones uiii edes porti- 
cum 

8 theatra quatuor 

balbi qui capit ab ea 
triginta milia .xxxurii. 
campum martium (rell. 
om.) 

1 marciani 

8 hadrianium 

5 diuoy 

6 .xluni. 

duo milia septingente 
xxuii. 

7 lacus 

9 Deum] dni (=domini) 

10 ramnusi 

13 11.] duo 

14 domus .]xxxuni. 

15 .xi. milia sexcentos 


5 Velabrum-Constantiniom. 
6 uicomagistri .xviili. 
II.] duo 
domus .l]xxxviiii. 
7 pistrina .xii. (ut uidetur, 
sed fortasse .xu.) 
10 nammosam 
11 subsaxanae 
partorium 
12 cohortes .iili. υἱοὶ 
18 uici .xuii. 


p. 17 


193 


p.19 8 .xii. milia 
5 nymfetrie 
thermas uriane 
7 uici .xuii. edicule .xun. 
8 .xlum. 
dom (= domus) 
10 ducenta nouem milia 
11 transtiberiana 
12 naumachias u 
ortos domitios 
balneum 


p. 21 1 cohort septem uigilum 

8 ortos gentis 

4 uicomagistri 

5 quatuor 

domus 

6 trigintaria milia 

8 .xxviiii. 
10 pedes fin. uers. om. 

11 mansoleo 


p.23 1 septem 
aelius 
fabricius 
8 septem 
Oclius (O init. rubricata, 
ut aliae inttt. αἰδῶ) 
5 octo 
agrippes 
6 pecuarius (fals abbreu. 
hic solum posita, ut 
uidetur) 
10 matidies 
11 marcianes 
floscellaria constantiniana 
12 titianae agryppianae sures 
18 alexandrianae 
diocletianae 


p.25 4-8(Traiana—Ciminia Curt- 
0st ordinem, ut N, 86- 
quitur) 

6 Camparia 
Hostiensis 


194 | ELMER TRUESDELL MERRILL 


Ῥ' 25 7 Cornelia inter Gallica et p.27 4 horrea CCXC. om. 


Triumealis omissum, 5 mille (wel fortasse inille) 

inter Ciminia et Tiberi- pistrina .ccliiii. 

na additum, asterisco 6 .x. 

praeposito, et in loco «Lill, 

secundum ordinem tu- 7 uix illa 

stum inserto 8 Rauennatium—10 Victi- 
8 Tiberina mariorum om, ut N 
10 ampitheatra 


11 coclydes duo macelli duo 


Even a cursory examination of these readings in comparison 
with those of cod. Vindob. 162 (Jordan’s and Urlichs’ A) will 
show, even more clearly than could be judged from the readings 
of N as given by Urlichs, the very close relationship between A 
and Spirensis. The precise bond between them might even now 
be inferred, but can doubtless be more convincingly established 
when more of the copies of Spirensis have been collated, and AN 
once more reviewed with care. My own scanty experience in the 
collation of MSS before collated by others, or by myself, and in 
the submission of my own collations to critical review by the care- 
ful eyes of others, has taught me that the only way to secure an 
approach to accuracy in the report of MS readings is through such 
independent and repeated collations, followed by a careful com- 
parison once more with the original on all points of discovered 
disagreement. Even when a collation has been made with, let us 
suppose, inhuman impeccability, the subsequent processes of copy- 
ing, and recopying, and working into other necessary forms, and 
typesetting, arid proofreading, and the diabolically malignant 
ingenuity of the linotype machine at the supreme moment, are 
certain to introduce enough blunders to make the soul that is 
ambitious of virtue refuse all comfort except such as is to be found 
in cursing Gutenberg, Fust, Schoffer, and all their company—or 
in reviewing other people’s sins. 

In the apparent lack of such an accessible compilation else- 
where, it may not be useless to append here a list of the MSS 
that have been already observed by others to contain the 
Notiha: 


Tur BopLEIaAN MS or THE Noritta 195 


I. Copies of Spirensis: 

. Matritensis Q 129, Regius, s. XIV-XV; 

. Canonicianus lat. misc. 378, an. 1436; 

Monacensis 794, antea 99, Victorianus, an. 1436 (Urlichs N); 

Monacensis 10291, antea 291, Palatinus, an. 1542-1551; 

. Parisinus 9661, antea Regius suppl. lat.671, Lamonianus, s. XV; 

. Vindobonensis 3103, s. XV; 

. Vindobonensis 3102, Salisburg. 18b, Endlich. 331, an. 1529? 

14847; 

. Barberinus 809, 5. XVI. 

(Besides these there are other copies derived from Spirensis, but 
perhaps not immediately, or exhibiting interpolation. Such 
may be Vindob. suppl. 14, s. XV, which contains inter alia, “P. 
Victor de regionibus urbis,” and Neapolitanus Borbonicus 1123, 
IV. Ὁ. 22?, which contains inter alia a “Descriptio urbis Romae.” 
Both of these are mentioned by Parthey-Pinder, and others are 
also extant; but all such MSS are naturally of minor importance.) 
II. Vindobonensis 162, antea 328, s. IX (Preller, Jordan, and Urlichs 
A; closely related to Spirensis). 

III. Laurentianus 89. 67,s. X (Preller, Jordan, UrlichsB; contaminated 
with Curiosum, and hence of little critical value save for its age, 
and for the fact of its use by early scholars). 

IV. Vindobonensis 3416, antea 56, 8. XV (Jordan 8, Urlichs C; 
Mommeen in ADbh. d. sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. II. 549 ff., 606 ff.). 


The above list is to be taken “as it is.” It not improbably 
needs correction (for which I should be grateful), and it certainly 
needs addition. 


Trinrry CoLLeGE, Hartrorp, Conn. 


+r |amnecacgoer 


THOMAS DAY SEYMOUR 
1848-1907 


Professor Seymour’s life is an inspiring example of noble service and 
high achievement. Its controlling impulse was an ardent desire for 
knowledge that would not be let by any stress of circumstance. Yet his 
activity, even in a strenuous generation that effected great changes in 
education, was remarkably varied. He was not only a-learned man who 
spoke with recognized authority, but also an earnest teacher, a wise 
adviser in college councils, a writer and editor of distinction, and an able 
administrator of important interests. He combined in his life exceptional 
classical scholarship with solid services to the cause of education. 

Even in his boyhood he was “a great worker with a passion for 
accuracy.” He graduated from Western Reserve College in 1870 as first 
scholar and was admitted ad eundem the same year in Yale. He then 
went to Germany, where he heard G. Curtius, Ritschl], Overbeck, Lange, 
Voight, and Lipsius in Leipzig, and Weber, Haupt, E. Curtius, Kirchoff, 
and Steinthal in Berlin. In the spring of 1872 he visited Italy and 
Greece, and in the autumn began his duties as professor of Greek in 
Western Reserve. In 1880 he was called to Yale. 

His father, a Yale man, had been professor of Greek and Latin in 
Western Reserve for thirty years. The elder Seymour was an excellent 
classical scholar of unusual general cultivation, whose interest in the 
ancient and modern classics was literary rather than linguistic. His 
intellectual habits and tastes deeply impressed the life of his son, who 
began in the quiet of his father’s library of between two and three thou- 
sand carefully selected volumes to acquire that remarkable acquaintance 
with the Greek and Latin authors for which he was famous. All his life 
he remained an incessant reader of great books. 

Professor Seymour was eminent among classical] scholars in America 
for a quarter of a century. His influence as a scholar steadily widened 
and strengthened, as he grew older, and enhanced the reputation of Yale 
University as a great seat of learning. His teaching covered a wide 
range of authors; his method was Socratic. “It is our duty,” he once 
said, “not to make our pupils comfortable but to prick bubbles.” He 
combined unusual capacity for work with unflagging industry. His 
sense of obligation was keen and he never spared himself. He rigorously 
tested the claims of new truth, but this wise caution was not the conserv- 
atism of ignorance. 

He belonged to the finer and gentler type of scholars, and happily 
was not “a good fighter,” although he never shirked a duty. And thus 
it was that all men loved him—for his candor, his modesty, his consid- 
erateness, his unselfishness, his unswerving devotion to truth. 

J. W. W. 
a 


MINTON WARREN 
1850-1907 


The death of Minton Warren, Pope professor of Latin in Harvard 
University, which occurred on November 26, 1907, has been noticed so 
widely that it will be superfluous here to repeat the chronology of his 
life, and alien to the present purpose to enumerate and characterize his 
contributions to classical studies, But because of his eminence in classical 
scholarship, and because of those traits of heart and of,character which 
endeared him to his pupils and to his colleagues wherever he was known, 
a few words are here recorded in his memory. 

The qualities of his scholarship were breadthof interest and knowledge, 
combined with thoroughness and mastery of detail. They resulted in a 
rare erudition, which was saved from lifelessness and barrenness by an 
enthusiasm and fire of energy, which was kindled by the vision of the 
whole. I have never known a classical scholar who could draw 50 
abundantly and so readily from his own resources to supplement the 
most varied studies of others, nor one who was so generous and uncon- 
cerned for personal recognition in placing his acquisitions at another’s 
disposal. 

As a teacher he was thorough and rigorously insistent in his demands, 
direct and unsparing in criticism. But his candor, his open-mindedness, 
and the warmth of his commendation where it could justly be bestowed 
won speedily an appreciation of the kindliness and helpfulness of his 
nature from all pupils of serious purpose. The circumstances of his 
academic career, as director of the Latin Seminary at the Johns Hopkins 
University from 1879 on, placed him almost from the first in a position 
to be a teacher of teachers, and gave him a unique opportunity to affect 
profoundly American studies and teaching in the field of the Latin 
language and literature. With what effect and success he used that 
opportunity those who, like myself, were his pupils may not say, but 
they will unite with me in testifying to that lasting influence which 
Minton Warren exercised upon their studies and their lives. 

G. L. HEenpriokson 


NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 


VARIA 


1. Professor Elmore’s interesting paper on the use of ὃ αὐτός, etc. (supra 
p. 184), will probably find more confirmation in later than in classical Greek. 
Even in post-classical Greek the very frequency of ὁ προειρημένος in such 
writers as Polybius shows that to their Sprachgefiahl “the aforesaid” was 
less clumsy and unidiomatic than “the same.” Sis. 388A seems a certain 
case, if the text is correct. Both text and interpretation of Apol. 24A 
and Rep. 397B are in doubt; and I have nothing better to offer for the 
latter passage than the suggestions of Campbell and Schneider. In 
Republic 525A, ἡ περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὄψις, if retained, must be understood with 
Hermann as “one and the same object of vision.” Adam, as quoted by 
Professor Elmore, contradicts himself. “Over against the intellectual 
apprehension of the one Plato sets the visual apprehension of the same,” 
is right. But his identification of “the same” with “the one” is wrong. 
The sameness or unity of a visual object which has many parts and 
qualities is a typical illustration of the difficulty and necessity of appre- 
hending the idea of unity per se. 

In all the other Platonic passages cited I think it can be proved that 
the forms of ὁ αὐτός are used with a distinct intention of emphasizing the 
notion of identity, persisting, it may be, under changed conditions or in 
a different matter, and should be translated by something like “these 
same,” “these identical,” “this very.” Of course when there is no noun 
this usage may be called in a sense “pronominal.” But it is obviously 
not the merely referential pronominal use for which Professor Elmore 
contends. That use cannot, I think, be established for Plato. 


2. Emendation of Dialexeis 6.1. Diels (Vorsokratiker, p. 585. 37) 
reads, λέγεται δέ τις λόγος ovr’ ἀλαθὴς οὔτε κενός. The context proves con- 
clusively that the λόγος in question is wholly repudiated by the writer. 
He does not go on to show that there may be something in it, that it is 
neither true nor yet altogether vain. Moreover, sucha disjunction would 
probably not be expressed in Greek by a simple otre .. .. οὔτε. For 
κενός we must read ἱκανός an easy change which restores the sense. Cf. 
Plato Laws 887E, οὐδὲ ἐξ ἑνὸς ἱκανοῦ λόγου ͵’ Hipp. Mi. 8690, ἀποδείξω 
σοι ἱκανῷ λόγψ. . 

8. Tiberius, Περὶ σχημάτων. Spengel, Vol. ITT, p. 65, 1.29; Walz, Vol. 
VIII, p. 543: οἷον ri τὸ κωλῦον αὐτὸν ἔσται βαδίζειν ὅποι βούλεται; ἐμφαίνεται 

198 


NOTES AND DIScussIoNs 199 


yap ὅτι κωλύειν αὐτὸν οὐδενὸς βουλομένου τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς ἐπιβῆναι δυνήσεται. The 
text will not construe. We must read οὐδεὶς βουλόμενον. The writer 
placed οὐδεὶς between the two accusatives to avoid monotony; βουλόμενον 
was miswritten βουλομένου and οὐδεὶς was changed to agree with it. 


4. Scholia on Hephaestion xv. 8. Gaisford, Vol. I, p. 22; Westphal, 
Scriptores Metrici, Vol. I, p. 206, 1. 8: Δοκῶν οὖν τοῦτο μιμεῖσθαι, ἔλαθε 
μιμησάμενος. The sense requires μὴ μιμησάμενος ---ἃ good illustration of 
iotacism and haplography. Hephaestion’s text has ἀγνοεῖ ὅτι οὐκ ἄντικρυς 
μιμεῖται. 

Ibid. xvi. 1, p. 107: οἷον αἱ ἄρτιαι τοῦ ἰάμβου δέχονται σπονδεῖον. We 
must read οὐ δέχονται (haplography again). The text cannot be defended 
by the interpretation that the writer is describing the error, not the rule 
of which it is an infraction. For he continues, ὅταν οὖν ris τῶν κωμικῶν 
θείη δάκτυλον 4 σπονδεῖον ἐν ταῖς dptias, etc. Westphal, Vol. I, pp. 211, 212, 
reads, ὅταν . . .. οἷον of ἄρτιοι δέχωνται. 

Ῥασι, SHorey 


THE NEW FRAGMENTS OF MENANDER 


M. Lefebvre’s editio princeps deserves a better welcome than is 
accorded by these few suggestions of readings and interpretations in 
which I venture to differ with the editor. 

1. “Hpws (3) 89: 

TET(AS). Δουλή ’oriv; (AAO) Οὕτως: ἡσυχῇ, τρόπον τινά. M. Le- 
febvre translates: “Une esclave? “Qui. (Je me suis pris d’amour pour 
elle) tout doucement, en quelque sorte.” The supplementary words in 
the parentheses are unnecessary. The words of Daos qualify δούλη: “Is 
she a slave?” ‘Yes, so-so, after a fashion,” and the speaker goes on to 
explain that she is not strictly a δούλη, but a shepherd’s daughter. Simi- 
larly in 59, Daos, lover-like, emphasizes the fact that she is ἐλευθέριος καὶ 

2. "Emrpérovres 808, 359: 

dap’ ἔχουσα. KrAav(O>prpilera, τάλαν, 

πάλαι γάρ' οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅ τι Kardv πέπονθέ por. 
The postponement οὗ γάρ necessitated by M. Lefebvre’s punctuation is 
impossible, or at least difficult. The verses should read: - 


Κλαυθμυρίζεται, τάλαν" 
πάλαι γὰρ οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅ τι κακὸν πέπονθέ μοι. 
8. ᾿Ἐπιτρέποντες 460: 
Κἀ[γ]ώ σοι ταῦτ᾽ ἐμοὶ φρονεῖν ἀναγκάσω 


200 Nores aND DIsoussions 


Both sense and meter are intolerable: σοι cannot be construed, nor can a 
spondee stand in the second foot. Whatever the papyrus offers, the 
poet must have written: 
κἀγώ σε ταῦτ᾽ ἐμοὶ φρονεῖν ἀναγκάσω. 
4. Περικειρομένη 89-46: 

Ὃ μὲν ᾧχετ᾽ εἰπὼ[ν] ὅτι κατὰ σχολὴν pet] 

αὐτὴν τί βούλεθ᾽, [ἢ δ᾽] ἐδάκρν᾽ ἑστῶσα καὶ 

ὠδύρεθ᾽ ὅτι ταῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἐλευθέρως ποεῖν 

ἔξεστιν αὐτῇ πάντα δ᾽ ἐξεκάετο 

ταῦθ᾽, ἕνεκα τοῦ μέλλοντος, εἰς ὀργήν θ᾽ ἵνα 

οὗτος (ἐσλαφίκετ᾽. Ἔγὼ γὰρ ἦγον οὐ φύσει 

τοιοῦτον ὄντα τοῦτον, ἀρχ[ὴ]ν δ᾽ ἵνα λάβῃ 

μηνύσεως τὰ λοιπά, .. .. .. 
Μ. Lefebvre translates 42-44 thus: “et, elle s’enflammait de colére au 
souvenir de cette scdne, en songeant & son avenir et au degré de fureur 
ot son amant s’était porté.” He inserts ἐσ- in 44 to preserve the meter, 
although there is no space in the papyrus. In this case he seems to 
have misunderstood the sense and forced the Greek. “Iva = “where,” or 
“into which,” is certainly difficult after ὀργήν. The mistake lies pri- 
marily in referring 42-44 to the girl. The verses describe the acts of 
ἴΑγνοια herself, who speaks the prologue: “All this,” says “Ayvou, “was 
stirred up for the sake of the future (action of the play), and in order 
that he might fly into a fit of anger. For I egged him on, though he 
isn’t this kind of man by nature.” We should then print a period after 
αὐτῇ in 42, remove the comma before ἕνεκα in 48, and instead of inserting 
ἐσ- in 44 simply read ἀφίκοιτ᾽, which corrects the meter and the sense. 
Apparently, here and in the passage discussed in the previous note, 
M. Lefebvre has confused € and ΟἹ in the papyrus: as in "Emrpérovres 
460 he transliterates oo. for σε, 80 here, contrariwise, he transliterates -e- 
for -o.-. Or possibly a vivid subjunctive (cf. ἦγον 44 .. .. λάβῃ 4δ .... 
εὕροιεν 47) ἀφίκητ᾽ may be read, if he has correctly copied the reading of 
the papyrus, in which case we should have the writing of a short for a 
long vowel common in the period of the papyrus; cf. M. Lefebvre’s 
“ Note sur le ‘codex,’” p. xviii, for cases of o for ὦ. 


ὅδ. Σαμία (1) 30-82; ὦ τάλαιν᾽ ἐγώ, 
πρώην τοιοῦτον ὄντα Μοσχίων ἐγ[ὼ] 
αὐτὸν ἐτιθηνούμην . . . .. 


One might suspect a misprint, but M. Lefebvre’s translation suggests 
that he takes Μοσχίων as vocative. Clearly the reading should be 
Μοσχίων᾽, an accusative. 
Henny W. Paresoorr 
University OF CALIFORNIA 

January 15, 1908 


NoTEs AND DISCUSSIONS 201 


THE LATIN GRAMMARIANS AND THE LATIN ACCENT 


Abbott’s interesting theory of a pitch-accent in Latin, employed by 
the educated, by the side of a stress-accent in the speech of the people, 
derives perhaps its strongest argument from the practical unanimity 
with which Latin writers themselves describe their accent in terms of 
pitch. Yet I am inclined to suspect that Lindsay may have put his 
finger on the true explanation of this practice when he says (Lat. Lang., 
p. 152): 


The Greek accent itself had probably at the time of these grammarians 
already entered that process of change which ended in the stress accentuation 
of modern Greek. The Greek writers on accentuation would no doubt go on 
using the terminology of earlier phoneticians, without perceiving that their 
terms and descriptions were now no longer so applicable to the actual phe- 
nomena as they had once been; and if the Greek contemporary theorists on 
accent misused the terminology in this way, a Roman imitator might be 
excused for carrying the misuse a little further in applying the same termi- 
nology to Latin accentuation. 


Besides, if, as is quite possible, the Latin accent, while primarily a 
stress, involved also a tendency to raise the pitch (as in English, French, 
Spanish, etc.), this really secondary factor may well have contributed to 
its identification with the Greek accent. We must not forget that the 
Roman writers were steeped in Greek traditions and can hardly have 
been skilled observers of phonetic phenomena. Wackernagel remarks 
(Bettrage zur Lehre vom Griechischen Akzent, p. 14) that “die Alten 
(und zwar nicht bloss erst die zunftma&ssigen Grammatiker) aus ihrem 
Akzent bloss das musikalische Moment heraushorten und das damit ver- 
bundene expiratorische Moment gar nicht der Beachtung wirdigten.” 

But before this explanation of the attitude of the Roman writers 
toward their accent can be definitely accepted we must be satisfied on 
two points: First, was the shift in Greek accent from pitch to stress 
achieved, or at least well under way, as early as the time of Cicero and 
Varro, who describe Latin accent with Greek terms? Second, was this 
shift general, or was it confined to the vulgar? 

It must be admitted that the evidence does not allow of a categorical 
answer to either question. Kretschmer (K. Z. XXX, 691 ff., cited by 
Abbott) has gathered, chiefly from papyri, a number of examples (greatly 
augmented by Mayser’s recently published Grammattk der griechischen 
Papyrt) of the confusion of long and short vowels which show that quan- 
titative distinctions, beginning to be obscured in the third century B. o., 
were pretty well broken down during the second and first centuries. 
Kretschmer’s explanation, since quite generally accepted, of this phe- 
nomenon connects it directly with a shift in the character of the accent 
from pitch to stress. This shift he therefore places—“ wenigstens in der 


202 Norgs anp DIscussions 


lange und kurze verwechselnden Vulgarsprache” — somewhere in the last 
two centuries B.c. Unfortunately we cannot be sure that the age of 
Cicero, though falling in the latter part of this transition period, saw 
its consummation. Yet it seems not improbable that when Cicero and 
Varro were writing, Greek was spoken by the common people with an 
accent not essentially differing from the Latin (predominantly stress-) 
accent. Whether the pitch-elevation which very likely accompanied the 
stress in many (perhaps most) cases was as great in Latin as in Greek 
cannot be determined, but this is not essential to the present discussion. 

To answer the second question, whether the shift was general, or con- 
fined to vulgar pronunciation, the material presented by the papyri does 
not help us. Abbott finds in spellings like Gyros for ὄντος proof of “a 
marked difference . . . . between the pronunciation of formal Greek and 
vulgar Greek” (pp. 457 f.), and it is therefore not surprising to find him 
taking the next step, and assuming that the two accents which he sup- 
poses existed side by side in Latin were paralleled by the conditions in 
Greek just before the beginning of our era (p. 459). But it appears to 
me that this is to overinterpret Kretschmer’s evidence, which establishes a 
difference between formal and vulgar Greek in spelling, not in pronunct- 
ation. The ignorant man who wrote éwros for the traditional ὄντος prob- 
ably did so because to his ear the first o was different from the second. 
But his better-educated contemporary who kept the old spelling may, for 
all we know, have pronounced the word precisely as he did. One might 
as well argue that the observance of classical quantities in the work of 
late poets is evidence that the pronunciation of the learned differed from 
that of the people. To discredit this argument one has only to mention 
the quantitative Latin verse of Petrarch, Milton, Munro, which surely 
proves nothing for their pronunciation. 

Dionysius, it is true, gives us to understand that Greek accent in his 
day involved the rise of a fifth in pitch (Comp. 11), but the statement of 
Dionysius is much on a par with those of Cicero, Varro, and others for 
Latin, and can be reconciled, I think, with the theory that the Greek 
accent of his day was primarily stress. The Greek accent in its gradual 
transition from pitch to stress may be thought of as passing through the 
following phases: (1) Accented syllables were uniformly uttered at a 
higher pitch than unaccented ones. Stress, if present at all, was so 
slight as to be negligible. (2) There was a tendency to accompany pitch- 
elevation with increase of stress, but stress had not become an invariable 
factor, whereas pitch-elevation was still inevitably present in the accent. 
(8) Stress was now more marked than before and was always present in 
accented syllables. An accented syllable was likely to have a higher 
pitch, but did not invariably. (4) Stress was marked and universal, as 
in (3). Pitch was present or not, depending on various factors, e. g. the 
earnestness of the speaker, the importance of the word, etc. 


Norrs AND DIScUssIONs 203 


If Greek was in the third of these phases when Dionysius lived (and 
Kretschmer’s and Mayser’s examples seem to prove that stress was 
not sporadic, but regular), the accent would be such as a modern pho- 
netician would describe as predominantly stress. But the accented 
syllable, being usually uttered at a higher pitch than its neighbors, might 
conceivably appear to a man learned in the theory of earlier days as dis- 
tinguished from the unaccented one by the difference in pitch alone. 
Moreover, we must not forget that Dionysius is not here discussing accent, 
qua accent, but the μέλος of speech, which he contrasts with the μέλος of 
song and instrumental music. To reconcile his words with the supposi- 
_ tion that the accent of his day was a stress (among the educated as with 
the masses) we are compelled to discredit his statement only so far as to 
regard him as mistaken in thinking that pitch-elevation was invariably 
present in the accent. It would seem therefore that there is no adequate 
reason for assuming that the educated Greeks with whom Cicero and 
Varro conversed used an accent materially different from that of the 
people who wrote the papyri. 

I cannot agree with Abbott in seeing an argument for a musical accent 
in the late rule about circumflex and acute in monosyllables. There may 
well have been in Latin, as there is in English, what might be termed 
a stress-circumflex—where the stress increases and then dies away. 
Donatus and Diomedes may have had in mind such an accent when they 
formulated their rule. The name is of course borrowed from the Greek, 
and it is hardly to be doubted that the Latin writers who employed the 
name thought that they had an accent equivalent to the Greek περι- 
σπωμένη. But the περισπωμένη of Donatus’ time was unquestionably much, 
if not exactly, like the ὀξεῖα, and even that of Cicero’s time (assuming 
that some speakers still distinguished it from the ὀξεῖα) was probably 
more like the stress-circumflex than like the tone-circumflex of the days 
of Plato. It may, of course, have involved an appreciable pitch-slide as 
well, as in English in, e. g., a surprised and drawled out “ah!” 

B. O. Fostrr 


LELAND STANFORD JR. UNIVERSITY 


COMMENT ON PROFESSOR FOSTER’S NOTE 


Professor Foster’s analysis of the changes which the Greek accent 
underwent is not only valuable in itself but will make it easier for us to 
accept the interpretation commonly given in this country to the passages 
in which the Latin grammarians deal with accent, if certain facts can be 
established. If it can be shown, for instance, that by the time of Varro 
and Cicero the shift in thé Greek accent from pitch to stress had become 
an accomplished fact, not only in the language of the illiterate, but for 
all classes of people, so that the Greek and Latin accents were similar in 


204 Nores AND DISCUSSIONS 


showing a clearly marked stress, and if the Greek grammarians of the 
second and first centuries Β. o. continued to use the old terminology in 
speaking of their accent, the theory that the Romans “carried the mis- 
use still further, in applying the same terminology to Latin accentuation,” 
as Lindsay puts it, will not be so difficult of acceptance. Both of these 
points are at present largely conjectures. Before leaving this matter, 
however, to take up the one subject on which I wish to say a few words, 
it is not improper to note that those who were “hardly skilled observers 
of phonetic phenomena,” and who are supposed to have blindly applied 
Greek terminology to the facts of their own language, would scarcely 
have observed so delicate a phenomenon as the incidence of an accent 
where “the stress increases and dies away,” and would scarcely have 
characterized it so accurately as a “(stress-)circumflex.” 

But the one point to which I must confine myself here concerns Pro- 
fessor Foster’s second question. At some stage in the development of 
Greek pronunciation it is clear that a tendency manifested itself to make 
the short accented vowels long and the long unaccented vowels short. 
This change in quantities was probably due to the growth of the stress- 
element of the accent at the expense of the pitch, and would make its 
appearance first in the spoken language of the uneducated and careless. 
_ Inasmuch as such people were little versed in the rules of orthography, 
their pronunciation would sometimes be reflected in their spelling, and, 
for example, since they made the accented vowel of ὄνομα long in their 
ordinary speech, some of them would naturally slip into the error of 
writing it ὥνομα. The better educated people still gave its historical 
value to the vowel in both the positions noted above and followed the 
conventional orthography. Ata later date they may well have yielded 
to the new movement in the matter of pronunciation without making any 
change in their method of spelling. Whether Kretschmer’s papyri 
belong to the first or the second stage of the development outlined above 
seems to me to be of no moment for the argument. The essential thing 
for us is the fact that his documents reveal these changes in the quantity 
of vowels and a change, deducible therefrom, in the nature of the Greek 
accent, and that, at some stage in the development, the stress-element 
was more marked in the accent of vulgar Greek than in that of formal 
Greek. Similarly in Latin the tendency to give all unaccented vowels 
the same value, whether they were long or short in formal classical 
poetry, appeared first in the speech of the ignorant. Later on this level- 
ing tendency affected the spoken language even of the better educated, 
but professional literary men in their formal poetry naturally tried to write 
the traditional quantitative verse which Virgil had written. Petrarch, 
Milton, and Munro followed the same conventional model, and I entirely 
agree with Professor Foster in thinking that their artificial productions 
and those of the late Latin poets throw no light on the pronunciation of 


NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 205 


the learned for the two periods in question. Again the two things of 

interest for us, and the only matters which concern us here, are that the — 
movement was from below upward, and that at some point in the develop- 
ment the pronunciation of the common man differed from that of his 


better-trained contemporary. Franz Frost ABBorr 


CAESAR BELL. GALL. VI. 30. 4, AGAIN 


In the October number of Classical Philology, pp. 465, 466, Professor 
Knapp takes exception to my proposed emendation of Caesar Bell. Gall. 
vi. 80. 4 (Classical Philology I, 290,291). It is not my intention to pro- 
long the discussion, for an extended argument upon a question of textual 
emendation is valueless, since nothing can be proved absolutely. The 
decision is always more or less a personal one, resting upon a feeling that 
the individual critic has for the author’s style and mode of expression, 
and this feeling results from an extensive and sympathetic reading of the 
author’s works. I wish here merely to reiterate the fact that I was not 
attempting to emend a sound passage. I am as averse as Professor 
Knapp is to change a reading that is supported by all the manuscript 
authority. I was proposing, however, what seemed to me, and still seems 
to me, to be a correction of a corrupt passage. I shall not give again the 
reasons for my belief, but as I come back to this passage from year to 
year, the sentence as I emended it (mortem for multum) appeals to me 
at least as one which accords more with Caesarian usage. 

Professor Knapp thinks that mortem could not easily be mistaken for 
multum. But why could it not? The words are quite similar in their 
general appearance. Surely my critic does not expect to lay down 
mathematical formulas to account for the curious workings of the human 
mind. The explanation of errors in copying must often be a psychologi- 
cal one which cannot be reduced to rule. How often have we all had the 
experience of miswriting a word where the error afterward seemed absurd 
and could be explained only by preoccupation of mind! I have nothing 
to add to my previous statement, but I did not wish, by my silence, to 
convey the impression that Professor Knapp’s argumentation was to me 


convincing. 
8 WaLtes DENNISON 


TRANSPOSITION VARIANTS IN CICERO’S PRO CLUENTIO 

[The sigla are as in A. C. Olark’s text, in the Oxford Olassical Series. The reading 
first cited is the one which seems most deserving of being adopted in the text. |] 

89 caput illius codd. praeter SST (tllius caput). This inversion, 
derived from the Cluniacensis, may have been caused by the omission 
and reinsertion of illius, which seems to come most naturally here after 
the word caput. 


206 Notes AND DIsoussions 


818 se sine scelere SST and Arusianus; sine scelere se Mp. It may’ 
be noted here that in the Codex Balliolensis (see my edition, Introd. 
p. xliii) the words sine scelere are actually supplied in the margin. 

817 cususcumque modi tb? VST; cuiusmodicumque Mu. 

819 vos volut codd. (including the Turin Palimpsest) praeter SST 
(volui vos). 

821 in ergastulo fuit P; fuit in ergastulo rell. Here Clark regards 
the reading of the Palimpsest, against Zielinski; cf. also the Scholiast on 
Lucan ii. 95. heredem fecit PSST; fecit heredem Mp. est mortuus 
codd. praeter SbST (mortuus est). sororis suae filium codd. praeter ST 
(sororis filium suae—according to Baiter, but not noted by Clark). 

822 reciperandi filit PSST; filii reciperandi Mp. est mortua codd. 
praeter SST (mortua est). 

825 autem fugam SST; fugam autem My. tres praeterea ST; 
alios praeterea tres (om. praeterea b') My. Here altos may =al. the 
sign of a marginal variant; οἵ. §171, and In Verrem iii, ὃ 138. 

$27 tlle tres SST; tres ille Mp. misera nihil mali SST; nihil mali 
misera Mu. 

$28 solent esse codd. praeter SST (esse solent). Here Miller, Clark, 
and Zielinski prefer solent esse. 

888 adhibitis amicis P (Miller, Zielinski); amicis adhibitis MpST 
(Clark). 

886 recenti re fuit P; fuit recenti Sb°’W°ST; recent: re (om. re 
b'w') Mu. 

$40 curari velle Sb°>W°ST; velle curart rell. (and so Miller, Clark 
—perhaps rightly). omnes suos Sb’W’ST; suos omnes Mp. Here Miller 
(and so too Zielinski) follows the vulgate; Clark reads omnis suos (sua 
omnia, Amic. δ 80). 

8.41 sitmilem sui eum SST; eum similem sui (om. sui ba) Mp. nemo 
tam 3ST; tam nemo Mp; nemo Quint, ix. 8, 38. 

$42 suo salvo capite SST (cf. Zielinski, p. 199); salvo capite suo Mp 
(“sehr schlecht”). 

§46 est usus SST; usus est Mp. esse turpem SST; turpem esse Mp. 

Cf. §50 ne illt quidem ipst Mp (Miller); ne ills ipst quidem SST 
(Clark). 

$51 non id SBST; id non My. 

§53 insidias factas 3ST; factas insidias MuFW. alia de re SST; 
de alia re Mu. 

8.60 bis iam condemnatuus SST; tam bis condemn.b; bis condemn. 
tam MoW¥. 

862 causam esse potuisse codd. praeter 3ST (esse causam potuisse). 

δ. 68 esse corruptum codd. (and Quint. ix. 2. 51) praeter 3ST (corrup- 
tum esse). 

§64 esse tudicium codd. (and Quint.) praeter SST (tudicium esse). 


Nores anp Discussions 207 


865 Oppianice, appello SST; appello Oppianice Mp. 

§68 suis ewm SST; eum suis Mu. 

§70 mentem suam codd. praeter Sb? ¥7ST (suam mentem). Zielinski 
(p. 199) rejects this latter reading. ipsiigitur SST; igituripst My. (Cf. 
896; Milo §48.) non fiert SST; fiert non Mu. 

811 nulla esse iudicia codd. (including the Palimpsest) praeter ST 
(nulla iudicia esse). 

819 iniectum esse codd. praeter 3ST (esse tniectum). 

880 tempore potius 3ST; potius tempore Mp. Cf. §174. 880 temp- 
tatum esse tudictum 3ST; iudictum temptatum esse Mu. 

881 Dicil accusator SST; accusator dictl Mp. criminum et atroct- 
tatem SST; et atroc. criminum My. 

8.88 ἰδία multa SbST; multa ista Mov. 

§92 idem illud PoST; illudidem Mb¥. inquit tdcirco PSST; idcirco 
inquit Mp. futt C. Iunio P; Iunto fuit MyST. 

Cf. §95 clarissimi virt atque amplissimi SST; clar. atque ampl. 
virt Mu. 

896 tllud igitur SST; igitur illud Mp. 

8101 omnes eius codd. praeter ST (eius omnes). 

8 108 totam causam SST; causam totam Mz. 

8110 desuefactam tam 3ST; tam desuefactam Mu. 

8111 mores et arrogantiam eius 3ST; mores etus et (om. et b¥) 
arrog. Mu. 

8112 est absolutus codd. praeter S (absolutus est). 

8118 non obiecta 3ST; obiecta non rell. 

8119 illud primum SST; primum illud Mp. illud unum codd. 
praeter S (illud unum). esse ipsum postea SST; ipsum postea esse My. 
erant a censoribus 3ST; a censoribus erant Mp. 

8121 numquam sibt codd. praeter ST (sibi numquam). 

8124 bonum virum SST; virum bonum Mp. coniunctum cum re 
esse S; coniunctum esse cum re T; cum re coniunctum esse Mp. Here 
Maller (and Zielinski) follows S; Clark adopts the vulgate. 

§125 deprehensus sit SST; sit deprehensus My. 

8126 aliquo gravi SST; gravi aliquo Mp. 

8180 erat illud P; illud erat rell. 

8184 vellet dicere 3ST; dicere vellet Mp. nemo contra 3ST; contra 
nemo Mz. . 

8186 id senatus SST; senatusid Mp. 

8188 sua natura codd. (and Rufinianus) praeter SST. iudicitum 
Suisse SST; fuisse tudicium Mu. 

8189 nostra auctoritate μ (Miller, Zielinski); auctoritate nostra 
MST (Clark). 

8142 opinione populari codd. (and so Clark) praeter Σ᾽ WST (popu- 
lari opinione; but so Miller, Zielinski). 


208 NOTES AND DISOUSSIONS 


8148 imprudentes videlicet 3S and Quintilian (v. 18. 47); videlicet 
tmprudentes My; tmprudentes om. T. hoc {δὲ SST and Quintil.; tibi hoc 
My. legis fecerim 3ST; fecerim legis Mp (but so Miller, Zielinski). 

8148 7. Acct te 3ST; te T. Acci Mp. ipsa tamen lex nos SST; 
tamen ipsa lex (add. nos b*) Mz. 

§154:ne ea SST; ea ne by¥. 

8166 causam dicit eques Romanus SST; eques Rom. causam dictt 
rel]. 

8161 vitae meae ST (Miller, Zielinski); meae vitae rell. (Clark). 
incertum et infinitum 3ST; infinitum et incertum Mu. 

8160 fingenda esse sibi ST and (37) i.e. erasure in Σ; sbi fingenda 
esse Mp. me necessario SST (Clark); necessario me Mp. (Miller, 
Zielinski). 

8162 cautum satis SST; satis cautum Mu. 

8164 esse reum volunt SST; reum (re niti b*W") volunt esse Mu. 

8171 Habitus vitae 3ST; vitae Habitus Mp. aliud (om. aliud Ὁ) 
mors eripuit Mp; mors eripuit aliud 8; ertpuit mors T. al? 

$172 per quem venenum SST; venenum per quem Mp. scelus suum 
SbST; suum scelus Mow. 

8174 potius ad alios 3ST; ad alios potius Mp. Cf. 880. 

§175 domino renuntiare 3ST; renuntiare domino Mp. tmprobdi- 
tatem coloni in Falerno 3ST; in Fal. improb. col. Mu. 

§176 moliri statim SST; statim moliri Mz. 

8188 igitur alia 3W°ST; alia igitur rell. vobis dicendum 3ST; 
dicendum vobis Mp. 

8184 nulla littera Sb’ W’ST; littera nulla Mp. dictum adiungere 
2ST; adiungere dictum Mp. 

8189 a viro improbo SST; ab improbo viro Mp. 

8191 misisset, ipsa 3W’ST; ipsa misisset rell. (wrongly). 

8197 homines honestissimos codd. praeter bw (honestissimos 
homines). 

§ 202 animum non by¥ (Clark); animum 3A Βπφ; non animum ST 
(Maller). 

W. Pererson 

McGI.ti UNIVERSITY 

Montreal 


BOOK REVIEWS 


Select Epigrams from the Greek Anthology. Edited with Revised 
Text, Translation, Introduction, and Notes, by J. W. Maoxalt. 
New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1906. Pp. xi+433. 


That a second edition of Mr. Mackail’s book was called for is an 
encouraging fact and one that shows that an interest in Greek literature 
as literature is not yet dead; for this is a book that appeals to the lover of 
literature rather than to the philologian, and it is in no sense a textbook. 
This new edition is far from being a mere reprint. It is a careful revi- 
sion. Especially is this true of the translations and of the admirable 
Introduction. Of the latter almost every page shows evidence of having 
been gone over with care, and the changes are almost without exception 
improvements. The style is more restrained; many statements have 
been modified; adjectives have been cut out, and here and there a 
sentence or even a paragraph; while some rearrangements and additions 
(e. g., a paragraph on the Anthology of Cephalas, p. 21, and another on 
the meanings of ἐπίδειξις, pp. 28 f.) make the whole clearer. The substance 
remains for the most part unchanged, though the paragraph dealing with 
the treatment of the passion of love by the tragedians, especially by 
Euripides, is in the new edition at once more complete and more sympa- 
thetic. The Garland of Meleager, formerly given (in translation only) in 
the Introduction, now finds its proper place at the head of the collection. 

The content of the book has been very slightly changed. Ten epi- 
grams included in the earlier edition have been omitted, while twenty 
new ones have been added. On this matter there can be no final verdict. 
Every lover of the Anthology will miss certain epigrams which he would 
himself have included, while there are doubtless others which he would 
have omitted; but the editor has shown admirable taste and judgment 
in the difficult task of selection. It may be worth while to add to the 
statement in the preface (p. viii) regarding the “exact changes between 
this and the earlier edition,” that certain epigrams have been transferred 
from one section to another: 6. g., those now numbered VIII.5; VIII. 7, 
and X. 34 were formerly I. 5; I. 41, and IV. 24; while in V. 16 a different 
epigram of similar import has been substituted for the one formerly 
occupying that place. 

The changes in text and interpretation are not numerous. wad\opévy 
has ousted βαλλομενη in I. 39. 2; ἐθέλεις has supplanted ἐθέλει in II. 7. 8; 
in IT. 8.1 ᾿Αρχέλεως (as an equivalent of ἀρχηγέτης) has taken the place of 
the gen. ᾿Αρχέλεω (used as a proper name); and in I. 29.5 οὐ pvovra has 

200 


[2 


210 Boox REvIEws 


given place to olSdovra. In general the notes have suffered few changes, 
though there is more repression than in the former edition. Here and 
there a statement occurs which invites criticism (e. g. that regarding com- 
pound epithets in the note on IV. 12), but these are exceptions. 

On the other hand the translations have been very carefully revised, 
and the alterations may be numbered by hundreds. In this difficult task 
Mr. Mackail has acquitted himself well. He is clear, concise, and sym- 
pathetic; and is often felicitous. Finality is of course unattainable, and 
if a third edition of this book is called for it will doubtless show as many 
alterations in phrase as this one does, when compared with its predeces- 
sor. For the most part the changes will meet with approval. In I. 18, 
e. g., how bitter a sigh, mark you? he drew from the depth of his breast 
is certainly an improvement on, how bitter a sigh, mark you? he drew 
all up his breast. The Greek is διὰ στηθέων ἀνηγάγετο. In IV.17.8 γήρως 
γὰρ γείτων ἐγγύθεν ’Atdew, now well rendered, since he who has old age for 
neighbor is nigh to death, was formerly, since old age ts death’s near 
neighbor. In IV. 22.6, that strife by Maeander where the flute was 
vanquished, is vastly better than, that disastrous flute-strife by Maean- 
der; and such instances of verbal improvement could be cited by scores. 
Sometimes, however, the changes are not for the better. In I. 6. 6 Ζηνὸς 
λῆμα καθεῖλεν Ἔρως, is now rendered, Love abated even the pride of Zeus. 
Was not the former rendering more correct, Love took captive even the 
mind of Zeus? In 1. 29. 2 grants me grace to sleep for a little, is surely 
no improvement on, grants me a little grace of rest, as a rendering of 
ἑἐλινῦσαι μικρὰ χαριζόμενος. In I. 37.5 γείτονες οἰκτείρουσι, σὺ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὄναρ, 
simply and adequately rendered before, The neighbors pity me, but thou 
not even in a dream, has now become, The neighbors have compassion 
on me, but thou knowest not even the phantom of pity. In I. 39. 4 
ov φθόνος κατοπτεύειν is now rendered, may look down ungrudgingly, 
which surely perverts the meaning, plainly rendered in the earlier edition, 
may look down unchidden. In I. 50.1 where the Greek has ὁπλίζευ, 
Κύπρι, τόξα, is Take thy war-shafts, O Cypris any improvement on, Arm 
thyself, Cypris, with thy bow? But these are points upon which judg- 
ment and taste will differ, and is may seem trivia] to note them. Still, 
simplicity and directness are Greek virtues. 

The book is well printed and both paper and type are excellent. One 
must regret, however, that defects in the Greek type are not rare; y and » 
are very often mutilated. Misprints are not common. I have noted 
ξήλους for ζήλους in I. 31. 2, and conversely éf for ἐξ in VII. 22.5; on p. 396 
Danae has been separated into two words; on p. viii, in the list of new 
epigrams, for I. 16, read I. 15; and in the translation of XII. 9. δ, by an 
unfortunate slip, let us prink, appears as a rendering of πίνωμεν. 

A. T. Murray 


STANFORD UNIVERSITY 


Boox REVIEWS 211 


The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. By E. BARKER. 
New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons; London: Methuen & 
Co., 1906. Pp. ix + 559. 


This is an excellent, though in no sense epoch-making, book. Begun 
seven years before publication as an introduction to Aristotle’s Politics 
it gradually grew into what is virtually a history of Greek political 
thought to the death of Aristotle, with a brief epilogue on the subsequent 
influence of the Politics and of Plato’s Republic. Mr. Barker displays 
throughout sanity, a sense of proportion, and a sufficient but not excessive 
interest in speculative political philosophy and modern analogies. He 
has evidently studied his texts with care and made good use of such 
German authorities as Wilamowitz, Henkel, Hildenbrand, Gomperz, 
Oncken, Eucken, Péhlman, and Dimmler without committing himself to 
their more adventurous hypotheses. Nohle’s illuminating but neglected 
essay on the political ideas of Plato he seems to have overlooked. 

Noting merely that the treatment of Plato is intelligent and sympa- 
thetic, I will confine further comment to the larger portion of the volume 
(pp. 208-496) which deals with Aristotle. 

Mr. Barker modestly styles these chapters τεμάχη from the great 
banquet of Newman; but if less voluminous he is more luminous than 
his master. A comprehensive chapter on “Aristotle’s Life, Times, and 
Writings,” prepares us for a résumé of his political thought which follows 
the order of ideas rather than the accidental] arrangement of the books of 
the Politics as now edited. This interesting chapter is largely a sum- 
mary of the best things in Wilamowitz, Eucken, and Shute. The 
Politics are, with the possible exception of the two books on the ideal 
state where the style is more finished, a professor’s notes for three sepa- 
rate courses of lectures comprising: (1) the prolegomena of politics, the 
general theory of the state and household, and data for the construction 
of an ideal state; (2) a sketch of an ideal state incomplete in respect of 
the higher education and of many details of legislation; (8) a treatise on 
positive politics or study of actual states, their classification, development, 
and the policies most suitable to each type. These lecture notes pre- 
served in the Peripatetic school and the Alexandrian library were put 
together from the private copy of Theophrastus and given to the world 
as a continuous treatise on politics by the Roman editors to whom Sulla 
intrusted the literary spoils of his Grecian campaigns. 

After these and other preliminaries Mr. Barker proceeds to expand 
the substance of Aristotle’s thought under the headings: the teleological 
view of the state; the state asa compound; Aristotle’s conceptions of law 
and justice; the ideal state and its scheme of education; actual states and 
the lines of their reform. It is impossible to summarize his discussion. 
It rarely invites hostile criticism either in matters of detailed interpreta- 


212 Boox REvIEWs 


tion into which he does not often enter, or in larger questions where he 
is generally right. A captious critic might ask whether φιλανυτία is ever 
used in the good sense of “self-respect;” and might point out that though 
Aristotle’s debt to Plato, and especially to the too-much-neglected Laws 
is explicitly acknowledged, the general method of Mr. Barker’s exposition 
remains that of the usual Aristotelian who invariably exaggerates his 
author’s originality and employs all the arts of interpretation to minim- 
ize his self-contradictions instead of accepting his inconsistencies as the 
inevitable result of his unsuccessful attempts to emancipate himself in 
appearance from the Platonism that was bred in the bone. It would be 
pleasant to quote some of Mr. Barker’s many apt and pregnant state- 
ments of the essential analogies and differences to be noted in a compari- 
son of ancient and modern political life and theory. But there is space 
only to recommend his volume to the general] student of ancient life and 
particularly to all authors of textbooks of the History of Political 


Theortes. 
Pavit SHoREY 


Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus. A Historical Study. By Brr- 
NARD CAMILLUS BonDURANT. Chicago dissertation. Chicago: 
The University of Chicago Press, 1907. Pp. 113. $0.75. 


This dissertation, written under the direction of Professor Abbott 
gives in detail] the life, character and influence of Decimus Brutus, estab- 
lishing the various facts by full citation of authorities. The work has 
been carefully done and the results arrived at are, in general, sound. Mis- 
prints are rare, press work and paper excellent. The introduction includes 
a summary of contents, a table of dates of important events connected 
with the life of Brutus after the death of Caesar, and a selected bibliog- 
raphy. The dissertation itself is divided into three chapters: I, “The 
Career of Decimus Brutus to the Year 45 Β. o.;” II, “Decimus’ Part in 
the Assassination of Caesar;” III, “ Decimus’ Administration of Cisalpine 
Gaul and the War with Antonius.” In the first chapter the tracing of 
the ancestry of Brutus is interesting, but not conclusive; the defense of ᾿ 
Sempronia (pp. 22), mother of Brutus, against the charges of Sallust is 
hopeless and opposed to Bondurant’s excellent handling of sources in the 
major portion of his work; on p. 23 the adoption of Brutus and his name 
Albinus are correctly explained, but I miss the reference to Eckhel, Vol. 
V, p. 187, where a fuller proof of this position appears. By far the best 
portion of the chapter is the description of the career of Brutus under 
Caesar in Gaul. Particularly happy is the treatment (p. 26) of the 
sources for the naval battle against the Veneti. The second chapter is, 
in the main, less satisfactory owing to the rather labored defense of 
Decimus Brutus. In this portion Bondurant often appears a eulogist 


Book REvVIEws 218 


rather than a historian. He has also devoted far too much attention 
(pp. 41-51) to an attack on Caesar and his imperial designs. Though 
this is an interesting section, it interrupts the treatment of the life of 
Brutus and yet offers no adequate apology for his action. In the third 
chapter the author has been more happy in his defense of Brutus. The 
conflicting statements of the sources have been well handled, and where 
the report favoring Brutus has been adopted, the reasons are generally 
adequate. 

The comparison of sources for the period has been so thoroughly made, 
that a tabulation of the results, showing their relative value, could easily 
have been made. In glancing through the footnotes I was not surprised 
to see that Bondurant ranks Appian much higher than Dio for the period. 
In some cases he probably goes too far in following Appian, notably on 
p. 94, where the opposing statements of Livy, Velleius, etc., are dis- 
regarded. A helpful index of proper names completes the book. 


Henry A, SAnpErs 
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 


The Language of Parody; a Study of the Diction of Aristo- 
phanes. By Epwarp Wiutuiam Horr. Johns Hopkins 
Dissertation, 1905. 


The reason assigned for this treatise is that while parody in the comic 
poets has been the subject of dissertations and more pretentious works, 
there has been no systematic treatment of the language of parody with 
a collection of the words by which parodic effects were secured. This 
Mr. Hope’s dissertation does for Aristophanes, aiming to give “a complete 
list of those words by the use of which Aristophanes departs from the 
usage of the ordinary Athenian life of his day, and rises to the loftier 
tone of tragedy or other kinds of poetry;” adding, too, dialectical words 
with which Aristophanes depicts the manners of his provincial fellow- 
countrymen. But while passages of parody or paratragedy, detected by 
scholiasts and modern scholars, are mainly the ones where the higher 
tone is consciously sought, the formal limits of known parody are too 
narrow; and many poetic words in this collection are not found in parodic 
lines. Further, the travesty often consists merely in holding up to view 
the ordinary affairs of daily occurrence, or in using the words of the 
common crafts to describe higher matters, or in substituting vulgar or 
commonplace words for tragic expressions. 

Certain characters may always be expected to use grand language, 
e. g., Euripides that of the tragic stage, as also Socrates in The Clouds, 
Aeschylus a lofty style abounding in epic words, Lamachus epic and 
tragic phraseology. A close comparison of the language used by different 
characters is often illuminating, e. g., after a poetical word has been used 


214 Book REVIEWS 


by one character its prosaic equivalent will often in the next line or two be 
used to designate the same thing by another character, this close connec- 
tion of picturesque and prosaic words frequently amounting to clear proof 
that Aristophanes employed the unusual word designedly. Sometimes, 
too, the use of the prosaic synonym at a greater remove, but where the 
situation or thought is similar, is significant, and not infrequently this 
internal criticism is the only means of judging. 

A word occurring several times and always in parody may be assumed 
to be not of every-day speech, but serving as a vehicle for the poet’s 
humor; but classification is not always so sure, for most of the words of 
the collection occur both in and out of parody. The evidence to be used 
in classifying words depends on questions like the following: “In what 
kind of meter is the word prevailingly found? What prose writers use 
it? What poets? Howoften? In what way? Does it prevail in poetry 
or in prose? What characters in our plays use it? or in addressing 
whom? or in speaking of whom? Was there any other word that could 
have been used? Is it a favorite with any particular author?” 

Often a word apparently belonging to the higher style of Aristophanes 
occurs in classic prose, and in such cases the following must be borne in 
mind: use by the orators, especially the later ones, is generally good 
evidence against a word being poetic. Plato is full of poetry and poetic 
words; and Thucydides and Xenophon in their usage often depart far 
from the later standards of Attic prose; Herodotus has much in common 
with tragedy, especially Sophoclean tragedy. 

Synonyms are a great help in classifying words, as is also the prox- 
imity of other picturesque words and their number. “Parodie words 
occur in patches or bundles.” 

“The plays differ greatly in the amount of parody they contain. In 
The Frogs where Euripides and Aeschylus wrangle, while Dionysus and 
the chorus stand by to judge and mock, we have the greatest amount of 
parody. Next comes the Thesmophoriazusae, with Euripides and his 
relative quoting tags of tragic verses to each other in antiphonal chant, 
while Agathon and his servant help to swell the total. The Acharnians 
and The Birds both have considerable parody, while the Lysistrata 
has very little, etc.” 


The work seems to be very carefully done. 
C. F.S. 


The Frogs of Aristophanes. Edited by T.G. TuokEer. New York: 
Macmillan, 1906. Pp. lx+ 276. 2s. 6d. 
Whoever henceforth shall teach the Frogs in English, ignorant of this 
edition (ἄπειρος τοιῶνδε λόγων V. 355), him, in the words of the Coryphaeus 
(v. 370), I charge once, twice, and three times, ἐξίστασθαι μύσταισι χοροῖς. 


Book REVIEWS 215 


Merry’s edition served its school-purpose excellently, we all admit; but 
Tucker proves that notes may be brief yet also packed with advanced 
instruction—may be witty yet learned— may translate ad verbum yet 
press hard on even Rogers’ versions for liveliness and rhythm. More 
important still, scholarship, for nearly a quarter-century since Merry’s 
edition appeared, has been lighting up many a dark joke, allusion, or 
custom; and contrariwise has proved that we often laughed in the wrong 
place, and really deserve βόρβορος and σκῶρ along with Morsimos. 

Tucker’s Introduction of 51 pp. is a compact statement of the mini- 
mum the student should foreknow. After dealing with the date and 
motives of the play, he presents the discovery he made in 1904 (Class. 
Rev. XVIII, p. 416), by which at one stroke he dispelled the obscurities 
of a whole scene (316-459), viz., that not the Greater Mysteries of Eleusis 
(celebrated in the autumn) are here burlesqued, but the Lesser Mysteries 
celebrated in the spring at Agrae. Following this is a brief and admir- 
able section distinguishing the language and non-lyric meters of comedy 
from those of tragedy on the one hand and prose speech on the other. 
(Because the exposition is so clear, one the more regrets that lyric meters 
are nowhere treated in the book.) The editor next itemizes the elements 
of comic style, with illustration of the Aristophanic pun, parody, παρὰ 
προσδοκίαν, quotation, allusion, colloquial metaphor, diminutive, expletive, 
etc. (a capital section); and finally adds an account of his text and a list 
of his innovations in readings, punctuation, assignment of lines, interpre- 
tation, etc. Among these I like best the following: 


15. σκευηφοροῦσ᾽ (V), construing therewith μηδὲν ὥνπερ as internal accus.; cf. 
833, Ach. 677. 83. RV read οἴχεται. Qu. ὀ-ο-οἴχεται with broken voice? Cf. 
Eq. 32 §per-er-éras, Av. 310 rorororod, Pl. Mostel. 316 0-0-ocellus es meus. 
197. ἐπιπλεῖ with the MSS, ‘if any one is (to be) a passenger.’ See L. ἃ 8. 8.v. 
279. τὰ δείν᾽ Epacn’ ἐκεῖνο: by the MSS, but with a dash after ἐκεῖνος---, marking 
the sentence as unfinished and obviating emendation. 877. ἠρίστηται, After 
371 the chorus perform a dance, which by comic fiction stands for the 
παννυχίς. In 377—presto—it is morning, and breakfast done. 507. κολλάβου’:--- 
The dash intercepts any verb for κολλάβον. 574. δέ γ᾽ as in MSS. 607, οὐκ 
és κόρακας μὴ πρόσιτον, ‘you shan’t come near me, confound you.’ Cf. Soph. 47, 
560 and Ant. 1042 for οὐ---μή separated; Aeech. Sept. 252 for interjected exple- 
tive. 7790. ἐκεῖνος, i.e. Sophocles, strongly contrasting his conduct with that 
of the contentious Euripides. 957. ἔριν (not ἐρᾶν) τεχνάζειν; cf. ἐριστικοί, and 
v. 1105. 1028. Qu. ἡνίκα γ᾽ ἣν εἰκοῦς wép: ‘when it was a matter of a phantom 
of Darius.’ 1235. ἀπόδος (to Aesch.) ‘give it back.’ 1265. ἰὴ κόπον οὐ wedd- 
das xrd., interversed five times over, does not parody the refrains of Aeschylus, 
but the monotony of his dactylic tunes. No matter in what play, no matter 
what the rhythm of their initial “ basis” (Φθιῶτ᾽ ᾿Αχιλ-, or Ἑρμᾶν or what not), 
they were sure to swing into ἐὴ κόπον οὐ xrd.= te | tim te-te | tim te-te | tim. 
1268. δύο σοὶ κότω κτλ. Here and in 1272 the impressionable Dionysus catches 
the te-te | tim rhythm as readily as he did Bpexexexé. 1301. μέλι for μέν (A. 


216 Boox REvIEWwSs 


Palmer). 1403. κἀν ἴοσ καί. 1437-53. A distribution of the verses between 
the two productions of the play, as already proposed in Class. Rev. XI (1897), 
p. 302. 1438. Qu. ἀέριον Apa: ? 


Further, the notes are clear and full on the probable “staging” (or 
should we say “orchestration” ?) of the play; e.g. 194: “In the theater we 
are to imagine Dionysus working his passage across the orchestra in the 
roller-boat, while Xanthias runs round and sits down.” Often, too, the 
notes are as merry as Merry can be; e.g. 245 πολυκολυμβήτοισι μέλεσιν 
‘many and divers strains.’ Of the metrical versions of the songs the 
following is a specimen (211-20): 


Come, children of the fount, folk of the lake, | Let us awake | And in 
its fullest sweetness loud upraise | Our hymn of praise | —Codéksh! Codksh!— 
| The hymn of Nysa’s story, | Of Dionysus’ glory, | The same we carolled in 
the marsh that day, | When on the Feast of Pots | The noble throng of sots | 
Through my demesne with headaches wends its way. 


On the other hand, I cannot but object to the following: 194. Note on 
παρά c. accus. is long out of date; see Rau in Curtius’ Studien, Vol. III. 
202. One may wish but cannot at all believe that the explanation of 
οὐ μὴ φλνυαρήσεις is as easy as Tucker makes it, viz. οὐ (δέος ἐστὶ) μή---. 
869. That Blaydes’ emendation (xpwidé thrice repeated) should be pre- 
' ferred to that of H. Richards in Class. Rev. XV (1901), p. 389 (viz. αὐδῶ, 
then twice ἐπ- αυδῶ) is to me unaccountable. 455. If we translate ‘For 
we alone have sun and gracious light,’ Tucker's initial accent on ἔστιν is 
needless. § 570 and 574 assigned to Dionysus can surely not be so happy 
as if given to Xanthias,as van Leeuwen. 610-lla. Tucker takes from 
Dionysus and gives to Aeacus, to save Dionysus from a “very unnatural 
position.” This seems to me naive. 645. οὖν for οὐκ is purposeless, 
if not worse. See Koch on Nub. 1066, or Kitthner-Gerth IT, p. 204. 
665. <repi> πρῶνας is labor lost. 896, Again it is lost labor to defend a 
text proved corrupt by the antistrophe. 986, Why suggest ποῖ᾽ dp’, 
when the text ποῖ᾽ ἄττ᾽ is so amply protected by 173, Pax 704, Av. 1514? 
1203. “Qu. κατὰ xpddpwv?” No, it would spoil the intentional singsong 
of the thrice-heard rhythm — - οὖ -. 1210. ἵνα καί: note on καί “says 
nothing.” See my note in Selections from Plato on Sympos. 175c, and 
cf. ὅσῳ καί, ὅτι καί ‘just because.’ 1298, Qu. ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἐγὼ μέν y’? The 
argument for here adding ye is curious: Ist, the formula ἀλλ᾽ οὖν .. .. γε 
is well known; 2d, “the combination μέν ye is also very common.” Ergo: 
“probably we should read ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἐγὼ μέν γ᾽. 1307. ταδί γ᾽ for Her- 
mann’s τάδε γ᾽ results in an unpleasant and unmitigated anapaest in the 
4th foot, which I leave to Mr. Starkie’s tender mercy (Vesp., p. xxxvii), 
as also the query on 286: ὄπισθεν οὖν i? 1823. That the misshapen 
“dba” exemplified in περίβαλλ᾽ should receive no explanation is perhaps 
to be expected in a book so mute as this on lyric meters. Yet I hold it a 


Boox REvVIEws 217 


serious delinquency when Aristophanes is taught with his rhythms 
omitted. Granted that we have little certitude on the details, yet we do 
know that the songs of the Greek drama were rhythmical. Better there- 
fore give if-it-be-but-a-hint of their ancient effect through our modern 
rhythms than leave them in utter sprawling prose. 

Misprints sometimes occur (e. g. Dioneia in note on 650), and wrong 
references are thick (e. g. p. 85, 1. δ, read 17, not 14; p. 86, 1. 3, read 677, 
not 647; p. 99, 1.4 of note on 97, read 573, not 57; p. 117, 1.11 from 
bottom, read 380, not 310; and these are but the beginning!). Neverthe- 
less, in returning to the upper world, as Dionysus did by Aeschylus, I 


shall choose Tucker and leave the rest. 
L. L. Forman 


CoRNELL UNIVERSITY 


A Short History of Greek Literature from Homer to Julian. 
By Wiumer Cave Wriaut, Pa.D. New York: American 
Book Co., 1907. Pp. 543. $1.50. 


This book, which appears in the “Greek Series for Colleges and 
Schools,” edited under the supervision of Professor Herbert Weir Smyth, 
does credit to its authoress, who is evidently well acquainted with the 
Opinions of modern scholars as well as with the works of the Greek writers. 
The views expressed are sane and reasonable, and the style is, on the whole, 
agreeable in spite of a few lapses into figurative expressions of doubtful 
taste. So(p. 31) itis said of critics of the style of the Homeric poems that 
they “range over the same ground, but they never put up the same 
game,” and (p. 45) the cyclic poets are said to owe their “second-hand 
immortality” to the “antiseptic quality” of the Homeric poems. 

In a smal] book which contains the history of the rich literature of 
more than a thousand years much must necessarily be omitted, and it is 
therefore only to be expected that those writers whose works are lost or 
preserved only in fragments are for the most part passed over in silence 
or with very brief mention. It would, however, have been well to impress 
upon the reader in some way the fact that in the Alexandrian period and 
the succeeding centuries the quantity of Greek literature produced was 
vastly greater than is indicated by the comparatively small number of 
writers whose works are discussed. Many of those whose works are lost 
exercised no little influence upon Roman writers, and through them upon 
the literature of later times. While it is probable that the lost works 
(like some of the extant works) of many post-classical writers had no 
great literary excellence, the immense literary activity of the post-classical 
period is of great importance in the history of literature. 

The analysis of the style of each author is clear, and as accurate as 
the brief space allotted to it allows, but it is doubtful if such analysis 


218 Boox REvIEWws 


helps the student to appreciate the qualities of great literature. A greater 
number of selections from the Greek authors, whether in the original or 
in translation, would perhaps have been more useful. In the treatment 
of the Homeric poems the views of scholars from Wolf to Lang occupy 
so much space that the reader almost forgets the poems themselves, and, 
in general, the discussion of modern theories constitutes rather too large 
ἃ part of the book. 

The favorable estimate of the poetry of Archilochus, which is inter- 
woven with the lively account of his life and works, is the traditional one 
handed down from antiquity, and is less completely justified by the 
extant fragments than one might wish. On the other hand, Mrs. Wright 
hardly does justice to the poetry of Bacchylides. The treatment of 
Menander is excellent, though unfortunately the most important frag- 
ments of his comedies were discovered too late to be utilized in this book. 

Lack of space forbids discussion of further details, but enough has 
been said to indicate the character of this excellent manual. 

Harotp N. Fowrer 


Ausgewdhlte Tragddien des Kuripides. Far den Schulgebrauch 
erklart von N. WEOKLEIN. Sechstes Bandchen: Elektra; 
siebentes Bandchen: Orestes. Leipzig: Teubner, 1906. 
Pp. 96 and 109. M. 1.40 and M. 1.60. 


College teachers in this country will welcome the addition to the 
well-known series of selected plays of Euripides, edited by the veteran 
Euripidean scholar Wecklein, of the Electra and the Orestes.'!_ No more 
interesting examples could be chosen, as collateral reading for a course 
in Aeschylus’ Choephoroe and Eumenides and Sophocles’ Electra, for 
the illustration of the freedom with which Euripides treated the legend- 
ary material, for the comparative study of the dramatic technique of the 
three great poets, or for the consideration of the changing taste of the 
Athenians in matters tragic, than these two plays; and for this reason, 
doubtless, they have been included by Wecklein in this series as they 
were by Weil in his Sept tragédies d’Huripide. They both deserve to 
be read much more widely than they are in this country. The general 
characteristics of Wecklein’s annotated editions of the plays of Euripides 
are too familiar to readers of this journal to be expatiated upon here. 
In the Introduction to the Electra the usual date 413 (or 414) is accepted 
as most probable in view of the historical ‘allusions; Sophocles’ Electra is 
thought to have been brought out only a few years before; and Euripides’ 
treatment of the myth is compared with that of his predecessors. The 


1The five preceding volumes of the series are: Medeia (3d ed.), Phoenissae, 
Iphigeneia in Tauris (8d ed.), Bacchae (2d ed.), and Hippolytus. 


Boox REvIEws 219 


discussion of the last-named topic serves equally well as an introduction 
of the Orestes. In his Introduction to the latter Wecklein shows how 
the poet uses the framework of the traditional material for the construc- 
tion of an entirely original plot; he protests, but with the lack of con- 
viction of an advocatus diabolt, against the adverse criticisms of Aristotle 
and of modern scholars; and finally he shows how the popularity of the 
play in antiquity led to numerous corruptions of the text by actors. 


Epwargp Capps 
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 


Lystas, Selected Speeches. Edited with introduction, notes, and 
appendices by CHARLES Darwin Apams. New York: 
American Book Co., 1905. Pp. 400. $1.50. 


Of the five or six current editions of Lysias in English this is in 
appearance the most attractive and in content the most encyclopedic; 
there are, in fact, about seven pages of commentary, of one sort and 
another, to one page of Lysias. No book in this excellent series shows 
greater thoroughness or accuracy. Many of the notes are models of 
terse expression, especially on points of syntax and the use of particles. 
The first section of the introduction, on the life of Lysias, is a good 
example of the careful sifting of evidence; perhaps it lacks a little in the 
literary quality of interest, marked in Morgan’s little essay on the same 
topic, but it is to the student a model of scholarly care. Much attention 
is paid to the technical side of Greek oratory in general, and especially 
to the style of Lysias, through analyses and comments prefixed to each 
of the eight orations selected. But should not even freshmen, for 
whom the book is professedly designed, do this analysis for themselves, 
however imperfectly? This matter, and some other material which the 
student should look out for himself in histories and handbooks, might 
have been spared had the editor, following the hint in his preface, brought 
out the bearing of Lysias’ “plain style” on modern public speaking. 


Wares Ray Brincman 
LakE Forrst CoLLEGE 


The Role of the MATEIPOI in the Life of the Ancient Greeks 
as Depicted in Greek Interature and Inscriptions. By 
Epwin Moore Rankin. Harvard Dissertation. Chicago: 
The University of Chicago Press, 1907. Pp. vi+92. $0.75. 

This dissertation is a detailed study of the μάγειροι, based upon a 
large collection of passages that have been gathered from the literature 
and inscriptions, but chiefly from the fragments, preserved by Athenaeus, 
from Middle and New Comedy. Dr. Rankin felt that the importance of 


220 Boox REvVIEws 


cooks in Greek life warranted a more thorough investigation than the 
subject had yet received. He does not bring out anything particularly 
new about them; the value of his work lies rather in the fact that he has 
taken cognizance of most of the material, sorted it, and handled it in such 
ἃ way as to give a comprehensive treatment of the subject. 

He treats only the μάγειροι here, but promises to discuss in a sub- 
sequent paper the ὀψοποιοί, dproxdror, and other kinds of cooks. 

The best previous article on the cook was that of the well-known 
scholar, M. Edmond Pottier, in Saglio’s Dictionnaire. With him our 
author takes issue in the chapter on the “Social Status of the Μάγειροι.᾽ 
At first, professional μάγειροι were hired for special occasions only, for 
_ public and private feasts and sacrifices; later, as luxury increased, rich 
men numbered them among their household servants. M. Pottier rejects 
Athenaeus’ statement that cooks were free men down to early Macedonian 
times, and maintains that the change to the servile condition commenced 
at the beginning of the fourth century. Dr. Rankin, on the other hand, 
fixes upon 300 8. ο., and produces many passages which tend to prove 
that this change began not earlier than the third century. The true date 
lies somewhere between these two extremes. Dr. Rankin’s view finds its 
greatest support in the testimony of Athenaeus, but the value of this 
testimony is somewhat impaired by Athenaeus’ manifest desire to mag- 
nify the business of the μάγειροι, which was essentially a lowly one (vide 
Theophr. Charact. vi; Livy xxxix. 6.9) and not far removed from the 
level of slaves with whom they are coupled in many passages (Poll. iv. 
119, 148; Ath. 6596; Luc. Salt. 29). Nor are such names of μάγειροι as 
Carion, Boedion (“Bull”), Batrachion (“Froggy”), Patanion (“Plates”), 
of a high order. 

Chrysippus says that Μαίσων, the name of the mask of the native 
μάγειρος in Greek comedy, is derived from μασᾶσθαι, “to chew.” If with 
L. Meyer Gr. Etym. IV, p. 342, we assume ἡμασῃ to be the basis of this 
verb, we derive from it the character-name μασίων, which then becomes 
μαίσων (vide Brugmann Grundr? I, P. 273; Handb.* II’, pp. 37, 68). 
Etymologically μασάομαι = mando, paicwy = mando, -6nis, μασύντης = 
manducus, and paowrias = manduco, -dnis. And so the μαίσων or 
glutton was a familiar figure in Greek comedy, just as the manducus 
was one of the stock characters of the Atellan farces. This is the view 
of Wilamowitz and Zielinski, now accepted by most scholars, but Dr. 
Rankin follows Aristophanes of Byzantium in assuming the existence of 
a Megarian actor Maeson, who gave his name to the mask which he 
invented. 

Our author offers a new explanation of the foreign cook’s mask 
Τέττιξ, namely, that the Megarians originated the name to ridicule the 
Athenian custom of wearing ornamental τέττιγες in their hair, and then 
applied it to all foreign pdyeapo. Hesychius’ words, rapa ᾿Αττικοῖς, how- 


Book REVIEWS 221 


ever, lead us to infer that it arose in Attica. See other explanations of 
the word given by Clement of Alexandria, Crusius, and Dieterich. 

For Potter and Bekker, pp. 6, 29, read Pottier and Becker, and for 
De anima, p. 91, ἢ. 1, read De spiritu. It is the meter that excludes 
᾿Αρίστων, p. 31, ἢ. 3, unless indeed it means ‘“‘Mr. Breakfast,” cf. Antiph- 
284. A mention of the opposing view of Wachsmuth as to the resort of 
the μάγειροι, and of that of Bockh as to the time of the officials called 
γυναικονόμοι (cf. p. 46, n. 1), and a reference to the terra-cotta statuettes 
in the chapter on “ Dress,” would not have been out of place. 

CaarLes W. ῬΕΡΡΙΕΒ 


Emory COLLEGE 


The Dido Episode in the Aeneid of Virgil. By Norman WENT- 
wortH DeWitt. Chicago Dissertation. Toronto, 1907. 
Pp. 78. 


It is seldom that a dissertation for the doctorate is so readable as this. 
In seven chapters the writer treats the episode of Dido as an incorpora- 
tion in the epic of an erotic story which is distinctly tragic. As to its 
function in relation to the Aeneid as a whole, “Virgil employs all his art 
to make the Dido episode a natural step in the progress of the hero’s for- 
tunes.” That the poet was influenced greatly by earlier erotic poetry 
may be assumed, and the writer therefore devotes five chapters to the 
history, poetics, style, and language of such poetry, including Virgil’s 
relation to Apollonius and Catullus. The two remaining chapters, one 
on Aeneas and the other on the episode as a tragedy, form the central 
part of the study, both in arrangement and in importance. 

In regard to Aeneas, the hero’s character as a whole is not discussed, 
but only his part asalover. From this point of view the hero must neces- 
sarily suffer according to our modern romantic ideas, and all the more 
so when we contemplate his conduct apart from the rest of the Aeneid. 
We fear, however, that Mr. DeWitt is not doing justice to Virgil. He 
finds that the poet “has been strangely silent concerning the feeling of 
Aeneas,” while it would have been “shocking to the literary taste of the 
day to represent the hero as a lover.” ‘The affair was considered by 
Aeneas as a liaison.” When he decides to break off the relationship, 
there is “no love, no sign of it, and no mention of it,” only “the embar- 
rassment of a lover” (the writer surely meant some other word than 
“lover”). In a word, “Aeneas did not love Dido.” 

Is this conclusion correct? We hope to show elsewhere that it is not, 
but the subject can hardly be discussed adequately in a brief review. In 
this connection, however, we would suggest that it seems a case of special 
pleading when Mr. DeWitt takes the amore tn magno animum labefac- 
tus amore (396) of Dido’s love. To the instances of cura in the erotic 


222 Book REVIEWS 


sense should be added others, notably the opening verse of Book iv, 
gravi saucia cura, and quite probably 332, obnixus curam sub corde 
premebat, which Dryden renders “nor suffered love to rise” (cf. Servius). 
Mr. DeWitt takes no account of the lacrimae tnanes of 449, which 
Henry and Glover refer to Aeneas, and which must have an important 
bearing on the feelings entertained by Aeneas toward Dido. In any 
case, as Mr, DeWitt admits, “ Aeneas was prone to tears.” 

Aside from the error (as we view it) of supposing that a great poet, 
who has shown such dramatic power in the portrayal of Dido, would be 
unwilling or unable to rescue his hero from positive discredit, we can 
point to very few demerits in this interesting study. We find a few mis- 
prints: aspectata (p. 29) should be aspectat; “with his own hands” 
(p. 84) should be “with her own hands;”’ the first letter of “eclogues” 
(p. 40) should be capitalized, and “ Resus” (p. 45 and elsewhere) should 
be “Rhesus.” Why does the writer speak generally of “Mr. Glover” 
and “Heinze,” but occasionally of “Glover” (p. 34) and “Mr. Heinze” 
(p. 29)? 


STANFORD UNIVERSITY 


H. R. Farroiover 


Die ficoronische Cista. Von Frirpriog Bean. Leipzig: B. G. 
Teubner, 1907. Pp. 80 and 2 plates. M. 3. 


The Ficoroni cista, one of the most admirable works of ancient classi- 
cal art, has not for half a century been made the subject of a special pub- 
lication. Hence -this Rostock dissertation, dealing with every feature of 
the cista in the light of the newest discoveries and speculations, deserves 
a cordial welcome. 

On epigraphical grounds the author assigns the cista to the period 
400-380 8. c.—a determination more precise than the scanty evidence 
wairants. The largest amount of space (pp. 24-70) is naturally devoted 
to the principal engraved design. Here, developing a view previously 
advanced by Professors Robert and Furtw&ngler, Dr. Behn argues that 
the design is derived, not immediately, but by way of Tarentum, and 
with some omissions and modifications, from a mural painting of Polyg- 
notan period and style, probably one by Micon in the Temple of the 
Dioscuri at Athens. In my opinion the author has much too lax a stand- 
ard as to what constitutes identity or essential resemblance between two 
designs. Thus the vase-painting which he cites (p. 61) as the first of 
several repetitions of the central group on the cista appears to me to 
have no demonstrable connection with the composition in question. 
Nevertheless the theory which he defends is plausible and may be true; 
and at any rate he shows a wide acquaintance with extant monuments 
and the relevant literature and strews his path with valuable detailed 


observations. F. B. Tarpey 


Boox Reviews 228 


Die rémischen Grabaltdre der Kaiserzett. Von WALTER ALT- 
MANN. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1905. Pp. 
306, with 208 illustrations in the text and 2 plates. M. 18. 


This work is a significant product of the recently heightened interest 
in Roman art. It is devoted to a single class of sculptured monuments, 
the sepulchral altars found in or near the city of Rome. These Dr. 
Altmann has classified into groups according to the leading motives of 
their sculptured decoration. He has further attempted to date repre- 
sentative examples and so to trace the development of style in this class 
of monuments. The most favorable judge of the sculpture of the imperial 
period in Rome can scarcely claim high artistic merit for more than a few 
of these altars. Nevertheless Dr. Altmann’s laborious work is an impor- 
tant contribution to the study of Roman art. It has to be added, how- 
ever, that the book is marred by a lack of clearness in arrangement and 
presentation. Quite unsuited for a beginner, it is a mine for the advanced 


student to delve in. 
F. B. TarBewu 


Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Epigraphicae: A Dictionary of the 
Latin Inscriptions. By GrorcE N. OLcoTt. Rome: Loe- 
scher & Co.; New York: Lemcke & Buechner. Vol. I, fascc. 
6-7 (ADTR-AES), 1906; fascc. 8-10 (AES-ALIG), 1907. 
Each fasc., $0.50. : 


Fascicles 1-5 of Professor Olcott’s painstaking and laborious Dtc- 
tionary of the Latin Inscriptions were noticed in Classical Philology 
(I, pp. 420, 421) and the general plan of the lexicon there outlined. The 
editor continues to issue the parts of his work with nearly as great rapidity 
as he anticipated. Fascicles 6-10 advance the Dictionary 120 pages (pp. 
121-240). The words which require extended treatment are aedis, aedt- 
cula, aedilis, aerarium, aetas, aeternus, Africa, ager, ago, and ala. 

A comparison with the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae shows in a strik- 
ing manner how some words are distinctively inscriptiona] and others are 
distinctively literary. Aestas, for example, occurs only seven times in 
inscriptions occupying one-third of a column in the Dictionary, but the 
word requires 6 columns in the Thesaurus. On the other hand aeternus 
requires 16 columns in the Dictionary but only 6 in the Thesaurus. So 
while aetas occurs frequently in inscriptions, the word agmen (found only 
once in inscriptions earlier than the sixth century a. p.), ato, adfero, ad- 
jirmo, which are common enough in literary Latin, are rarely seen in 
inscriptions. ‘Those interested in orthographic research will examine the 
spellings of aeneus (aheneus until the time of Augustus), of Aeduus 


224 Book REvIEws 


(seven times, but only one occurrence of Haeduus), of agnosco (seven 
times, while adgnosco occurs twice), and of Alexandrea (Alexandria 
begins to appear in the first century a. p.), and they will speculate upon 
the significance of the spellings, atvento, atviolo, atvivo, and ᾿Ατβοκᾶτον, 
and of afluo and afluentia which forms alone occur in inscriptions by 
the side of the literary affivo and affluentia. 

The reviewer has only the highest words of praise to express of the 
work done by Professor Olcott in these fascicles. They are marked by 
accuracy of method, and conciseness of diction and by an arrangement 
of material which reduces to a minimum the work of reference. Not only 
will the Dictionary be found in every great library but it will be of serv- 
ice also in private and college libraries for which the Corpus could not 


be purchased. 
WaLter DEnnNISsON 
UNIVERSITY oF MICHIGAN 


Classical Philology 


Vou. ΠΙ Fuly, 1908 No. 3 


DE EURIPIDIS STHENEBOEA 
By ULricH von WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF 


Ut felix ager cultori annuam messem fert, sic Aegyptiae harenae 
nova quotannis librorum Graecorum fragmenta doctis fossoribus 
obferunt. Sed ne in bibliothecis quidem spicilegium infructuo- 
sum esse cum alii nuper experti sunt, tum Hugo Rabe, rhetoricae 
Byzantinorum artis explorator indefessus. Cui modo contigit 
ut trium adeo Kuripidis fabularum multos versus ederet (Mus. 
Rhenan. LXIII p. 145 sqq.), tradita in Iohannis diaconi et logo- 
thetae commentario in Hermogenem scripto, ex quo cum excerpta 
quaedam in marginibus codicis Laurentiani 56, 1 ad Gregorii 
Corinthii commentarium adscripta essent, poteramus ex eo edere 
Welckerus Stheneboeae argumentum, ego adulescentulus Pirithoi. 
Apparet autem me errasse, cum suspicarer seris rhetoribus argu- 
menta tantum tragoediarum praesto fuisse, quae simul cum multis 
versibus descripta sunt e codice Euripideo, non quidem ab Iohanne, 
sed ab antiquiore rhetore, quinti opinor aut sexti saeculi." Nam 
superfuisse tunc plerasque Euripidis fabulas folia docent Melanip- 
pae captivae Berolinensia, Phaethontis Parisina. 

De Pirithoo et Melanippa philosopha dicere nunc in animo non 
est, nisi quod emendatiunculae aliquot infra marginem ut admit- 
tantur pudenter rogant;* sed Stheneboeae et argumentum et pro- 


1Haud aliter iudicandum de Augae argumento in Mosis Chorenensis Progymnas- 
matis servato. 

3In Pirithoo Hercules dicit " Eurystheus me iussit Oerberum arceesere ἰδεῖν μὸν οὐ 
θέλων, ἄθλον δέ μοι ἀνήνυτον τὸν δῶκεν ἐξηνυκέναι.᾽" nihili est hoc ultimum perfectum 
(CLassIcAL PHILOLOGY ITI, July, 1908] 205 


226 ULBICH VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDOBFF 


logum adscribam necesse est. Distinguo membra orationis clau- 
sulis rhythmicis distincta, videtur autem is qui veteris argumenti 
verba his numeris adstringebat, ubi ultimum accentum duae sylla- 
bae secuntur, ante eum singulas aut ternas syllabas accentu 
carentes tolerasse. Ceterum praetereo pauca ac levia Laurentiani 
ope emendata. 

IIpotros ἣν “ABavros' vids ᾿Ακρισίου δὲ ἀδελφὸς βασιλεὺς δὲ 
Τίρυνθος. γήμας δὲ Σθενέβοιαν ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐγέννησε παῖδας, Βελλε- 
ροφόντην δὲ φεύγοντα ἐκ Ἱζορίνθου διὰ φόνον αὐτὸς μὲν' ἥγνισε τοῦ 
μύσους, ἡ γυνὴ δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸν ξένον ἠγάπησε, τυχεῖν δὲ μὴ δυναμένη 
τῶν ἐπιθυμημάτων διέβαλεν ὡς ἐπιθέμενον αὐτῆι τὸν ἸΚορίνθιον. 
πεισθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἹΙροῖτος ἐξέπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς Kaplav ἵνα ἀπόληται, δέλ- 
τον γὰρ αὐτῶι δοὺς ἐκέλευσε πρὸς ᾿Ιοβάτην διακομίζειν. ὁ δὲ τοῖς 
γεγραμμένοις ἀκόλουθα πράττων προσέταξεν αὐτῶι διακινδυνεῦσαι 
πρὸς τὴν Χίμαιραν. ὁ δὲ ἀγωνισάμενος τὸ θηρίον ἀνεῖλε. πάλιν δὲ 
ἐπιστρέψας εἰς τὴν Τίρυνθα κατεμέμψατο ζμὲν» τὸν Προῖτον 
ἀνέσεισε δὲ τὴν Σθενέβοιαν ὡς <eis> τὴν Καρίαν ἀπάξων. μαθὼν δὲ 
παρ᾽ αὐτῆς" ἐκ Προίτου δευτέραν ἐπιβουλὴν φθάσας ἀνεχώρησεν. 
ἀναθέμενος δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν Πήγασον τὴν Σθενέβοιαν μετέωρος ἐπὶ τὴν 
θάλασσαν ἤρθη. γενόμενος δὲ κατὰ Μῆλον τὴν νῆσον ταύτην ἀπέρ- 
pie. αὐτὴν μὲν οὖν ἁλιεῖς ἀναλαβόντες διεκόμισαν εἰς τὴν Τίρυνθα. 
πάλιν δὲ ἐπιστρέψας ὁ Βελλεροφόντης πρὸς τὸν ΠΙροῖτον πεπραχέναι 
ταῦτα αὐτὸς ὡμολόγησε. δὶς γὰρ ἐπιβουλευθεὶς πρὸς ἀμφοτέρων 


sive sententiam, sive tempus, sive metrum spectas; corrupit igitur titubans scribae 
memoria alium perfecti infinitivum propter antecedens ἀνήνυτον. Contra ἀνήνυτον τόνδ᾽ 
integrum est: nihil aptius demonstrativo pronomine. Sequebatur igitur bisyllaba 
verbi finiti forma a vocali incipiens. Quae cum perspexerimus recuperamus ἀνήνυτον 
τόνδ᾽ ὥιετ᾽ ἐξηυρηκέναι. 

Melan. 11 --- ἀλλ᾽ ἀνοιστέος λόγος ἐπ᾽ ὄνομα τοὐμόν͵ κεῖσ᾽ ὄθενπερ ἠρξάμην. Traditum 
λόγος ὄνομά τε. 10θ--- ὕμνους Hide χρησμωιδὸς βροτοῖς ἄκη πόνων φράζουσα. Peccant qui 
ante ultimum senarii pedem interpungunt. βροτοῖς igitur quamvis ἀπὸ κοινοῦ positum 
in pronuntiando cum 4#.de potius coniungitur. Qualia grammatico gratissima tantum e 
severissimi cuiusque poetae usu dici possunt. Oonstat autem Euripidem ante ultimum 
senarii pedem non interpunxisse. 19 --- μουσεῖον ἐκλιποῦσα Kwptxiby τ᾽ ὄρος. Hoc esset 
‘*relinguens Museum et OCorycium montem.’’ Quale Museum? Reliquit Musis 
sacrum Corycium montem. Sublata copula simul tollitur anapaestus. 


1” ABavros, Nauck. ᾿Ακάμαντος, Iohannes. 

3 αὐτὸν μέν cod. correxi, terminationes casuum antiquitus non fuisse scriptas codi- 
cum discrepantiae ostendunt. 

%¢ap’ αὐτοῦ cod. παρά του male Rabe, ut solent multi intempestivo obsoleti pro- 
nominis amore decipi. 


Dr Evuripipis STHENEBOEA 227 


Sucny εἰληφέναι τὴν πρέπουσαν, τῆς μὲν εἰς τὸ ζῆν τοῦ δὲ εἰς τὸ 
λυπεῖσθαι. εἰσάγεται γοῦν ὁ Βελλεροφόντης λόγων καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν. 


Οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ᾽ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ" 
A γὰρ πεφυκὼς ἐσθλὸς οὐκ ἔχει βίον, 
h δυσγενὴς ὧν πλουσίαν apot πλάκα, 
πολλοὺς δὲ πλούτωι καὶ γένει γαυρουμένους" 
ὅ γυνὴ κατήισχυν᾽ ἐν δόμοισι νηπία" 

τοιᾶιδε ἸΠροῖτος [ ἄναξ νόσωι νοσεῖ] 
ξένον γὰρ ἱκέτην ταῖσδ᾽ ἐπελθόντα στόγαις" 
λόγοισι πείθει καὶ δόλωι θηρεύεται 
κρυφαῖον εὐνῆς εἰς ὁμιλίαν πεσεῖν. 

10 αἰεὶ γὰρ ἥπερ τῶιδ᾽ ἐφέστηκεν λόγωι" 
τροφὸς γεραιὰ καὶ ξυνίστησιν λέχος 
ὑμνεῖ τὸν αὐτὸν μῦθον ““ὦ κακὸν φρονῶν 
πιθοῦ: τί μαίνηι; τλῆθι δεσποίνης ἐμῆς" 
κτῆσαι δ᾽ ἄνακτος δώμαθ', ἕν πεισθεὶς βραχύ." 

15 ἐγὼ δὲ θεσμοὺς Ζῆνά θ᾽ ἱκέσιον σέβων 
Προῖτόν τε τιμῶν, ὅς μ᾽ ἐδέξατ᾽ εἰς δόμους 
λιπόντα γαῖαν Σισύφου φόνων τ᾽ ἐμὰς 
ἔνιψε χεῖρας αἷμ᾽ ἐπισφάξας νέον, 
οὐπώποτ᾽ ἠθέλησα δέξασθαι λόγους 

20 οὐδ᾽ εἰς νοσοῦντας ὑβρίσαι δόμους Edvos,® 
μισῶν ἔρωτα δεινόν, ὃς φθείρει βροτούς 
[διπλοῖ γὰρ ἔρωτες ἐντρέφονται χθονί: 


νυ. 1. εὐδαιμονῶν. Υ. 8. δυσμενής. v. 4. τιμωμένους cod. Omnia emendata leguntur 
in ἔστω. 661. 62. 


2 Non sufficit versum facere suppleto ys. Requiritur loci indicatio ac deinde ipse 
Bellerophontes et suum et Stheneboeae nomen spectatoribus notum fecit. Nam pro- 
logorum Euripideorum consuetudo constans atque certa est. Lacunam ab interpola- 
tore male resartam ludendo explere nolo. 


ὃ τῇσδ᾽ ἐ. στέγης. Malui pluralis quam singularis dativum restituere. 

4 κορυφαῖον et τόδ᾽ ἐφέστ. correxit Rabe. 

δι κακῶς φρενῶν πείθηι" emendavi. Deinde versum excidisse indic. Rabe, veluti 
πόθοισιν εἴκειν. μὴ κακὴν αἰδῶ τρέφε. 


δ δῶμα πεισθείς τι βραχύ. correxi; quamquam ubicumque interpolator grassatus est, 
omnis restitutio incerta. 


7 Geo pots Rabe, θοούς cod. 8 γοσοῦντος corr. Brinkmann. 


228 ULRBIOH VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF 


ὁ μὲν γεγὼς ἔχθιστος εἰς Αἰδην φέρει |’ 
ὁ δ᾽ εἰς τὸ σῶφρον ἐπ᾽ ἀρετήν 7 ἄγων ἔρως 
25 ἔζξηλωτὸς ἀνθρώποισιν ὧν εἴην ἐγώ. 
οὔκουν νομίζω | καὶ θανεῖν γε σωφρονῶν |," 
ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἀγρὸν γὰρ [ ἐξιέναι βουλήσομαι |.” 
οὐ γάρ με λύει τοῖσδ᾽ ἐφήμενον δόμοις 
κακορροθεῖσθαι μὴ θέλοντ᾽ εἶναι κακόν, 
80 οὐδ᾽ αὖ κατειπεῖν καὶ γυναικὶ προσβαλεῖν 
κηλῖδα ἹΠροίτου καὶ διασπάσαι δόμον. 


Bellerophon qui haec verba facit Stheneboeae amorem reppulit, 
sed calumniis ab eadem nondum petitus est, nedum in Lyciam 
missus cum Chimaera conflixerit. Eodem igitur actionis mo- 
mento et tragoediam ordiri animadvertimus atque argumentum. 
Quod modo persequamur, lineamenta iustae tragoediae facile 
apparent. Quam plane singulariter compositam fuisse mirati 
mox perspicimus fabulam ita exorsam ne potuisse quidem aliter 
disponi. Agedum umbram eorum excitemus quae Athenienses in 
scaena spectaverunt. 

Postquam Bellerophontes exiit, Proetus Stheneboeae calumniis 
excitatus in Cariam‘ eum misit, ut ab Iobate occideretur. Quae 
duas ut minimum scaenas requirebant. Magnus deinde temporis 
hiatus, si verum rimamur, complurium mensium. Atque cura- 
vit poeta ut spectatoribus narraret quae interim gesta essent. Hic 
enim locum habebant nobilissima illa fragmenta quibus (a nu- 
trice nimirum) Stheneboese angores et desideria describuntur 

1 Versus a Christiano interpolatos ease monui (noveram enim ex alio codice) in 
Actis Academ. Berol. 1907, 4. Christianorum enim ᾿Αιδης ille est, in quem incidunt 
qui mala libidine ducuntur. Fortasse iam dixeris fragmenta versuum male suppleta 
ease. Nam poterat Euripides scribere δισσοὶ γάρ elo’ ἔρωτες ἐν βροτῶν γένει, ὁ μὲν 


γεγὼς αἴσχιστος ὀλέθριός 6’ ἅμα. Me tamen ut in priore sententia perstem maxime vox 
¥ows adducit in extremo versu 24 collocata. 

2 Balbutiens interpolator his dicere volebat ‘‘ego vel mortem obeundam esse 
censeo, ut castitas servetur.”” Euripides dixerat ‘‘itaque cedere nequitiae nolo.”’ 
Restituere servato νομίζω non potui. 

8Haec quoque interpolatio manifesta, ἐξιών fortasse probabile; verbi reatitutio 
incerta, donec proximi versus sententia recuperata sit. Videtur Euripidis codex, quo 
is qui primus haec excerpsit utebatur, mutilus fuisse, nam interpolationes Johanne 
certe antiquiores sunt. 

4Cariam pro Lycia appellat poeta. Nimirum Lycii usque ad annum 439 Cariae 
provinciae ab Atheniensibus erant attributi. 


DE EvRIPIDIS STHENEBOEA 229 


(fm. 663-65). Quasi alterum prologum habemus. Deinde Bel- 
lerophontes victor e Caria redit, facinora sua describit, Proeto 
perfidiam exprobrat, ab eodem novis insidiis petitus Stheneboeae 
cuius indicio servatus erat, simulato amore persuadet, ut Pegaso 
vecta se in Asiam comitetur. Pegasum autem ipsum in ea scaena 
inductum esse in qua Bellerophontes victoriam de Chimaera 
reportatam narrabat, novo fragmento edocti sumus, quod nuper 
Photius Berolinensis obtulit, 


παίω Χίμαιραν εἰς σφαγάς, πυρὸς δ᾽ ἀθὴρ 
βάλλει με καὶ τοῦδ᾽ αἰθαλοῖ πυκνὸν πτερόν." 


Qui Pegasus ligneus esse vix poterat (risissent opinor Athenien- 
ses), sed equus verus alis ornatus, quem manu ducebat histrio: 
nobilem equum libenter commodabat choragus, libentissime spec- 
tabat populus equitandi studio ardens. Atque ingeniossime ita 
ea praeparabantur quae mentis tantum oculis mox erant spectanda. 
Machina enim Bellerophontis tragoediae quam in Pace imitatus 
est Aristophanes, ab hac fabula cum aliis de causis tum propterea 
aliena fuisse censenda est quia verus inducebatur equus; nec bis 
idem placuisset artificium. 

Rursus hiat tempus. Prodeunt deinde piscatores qui ad 
Melum insulam Stheneboeae a Bellerophonte praecipitatae corpus 
invenerant. Audimus eos in fm. 669 vitae marinae angustias 
describentes: perlustra ceteros Euripidis nuntios, nihil reperies 
quod cum his piscatoribus comparare possis. Denique Bellero- 
phontes ipse redit Tirynthios de iusta ultione certiores facturus 
quam de Proeto et Stheneboea sumpserit. Debebat etiam disces- 
gurus indicare quo proficisceretur, nempe in regnum Asianum 
modo victoriis partum. Haud dissimilis hic ultimus actus est 
earum tragoediarum in quibus deus ex machina iudicium de 
rebus gestis fert et futura praenuntiat. Sed necessaria hic sunt 
et ipsa actione postulantur quae ibi frigida esse solent et ab 
actione quam ratio postulat abhorrent. Nonne probabile Sthene- 
boeam aetate omnes illas tragoedias antecedere? Inveniendi 

1Emendavi Χιμαίρας et αἰθάλη in Actis Berol. 1907, 4. Non huius nuntii est fgm. 
669, sed potius eius scaense in qua Bellerophontes Stheneboeae iter suscipiendum 


describit. Fm. 667 ad Proetum in altera utra altercatione dixit. Fm. 666 secundum 
Stobaei codicem Bellerophontis est, cui fidem derogare non audeo. 


230 ULBIOH VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDOBFF 


audaciam in iuvene Euripide admiramur: audacter pleraque in 
Stheneboea novavit. Nam Bellerophontes quidem cum Pegaso 
inde ab Hesiodo nobilissimus est maxime inter Corinthios eorum- 
que vicinos,’ nec nobilitatem per Iliadem solam adeptus est quae 
Pegasum ignorat. Sed perfidae mulieris, qualis Homeri Antia 
est, in Corinthiorum fabulis partes fuisse neque demonstrari 
potest neque negari, nam Stheneboeae nomen Euripides Antiae 
primus substituere poterat, siquidem Proeti uxor hoc nomine in 
alia tunc celeberrima fabula utebatur, quae est de Proeti filiabus 
(Apollod. Biblioth. II 26, III 102), quod nomen in Argolide 
natum esse fidem faciunt Iuppiter σθένιος Argis, Minerva σθενιάς 
Troezene culti compluresque Stheneli Argivi. Sed ut Stheneboea 
ante Euripidem cum Bellerophonte coniuncta fuerit, statuenda 
tunc est ipsa sibi mortem conscivisse, hoc enim mythographi 
tradunt.’? Id vero quod gravissimum est, Stheneboeam a Bellero- 
phonte decipi abduci interfici, Euripidis est commentum. Quod 
omnino ignoraremus, nisi servatum esset argumentum. Ignora- 
mus igitur quid in Bellerophonte tragoedia actum sit, nisi quod 
mores herois e fragmentis aliquatenus perspicimus, qui taedio 
generis humani correptus caelum petit quaesiturus sintne dei an 
non sint, ac deinde deiectus in terram per Erroris campum clau- 
dicans mendicus incedit. Unde id certe colligimus, continuari 
non solum res in Stheneboea gestas, sed virtutis parum humanae 
quam in illa tragoedia iactaverat in hac eum poenas dare. Acce- 
dit quod hic Pegaso insidens spectatur. Quibus omnibus com- 
moveor ut Stheneboeam ante Bellerophontem compositam esse 
credam. Nam casu tribuendum quod haec in Vespis demun, 
Bellerophontes iam in Acharnensibus commemoratur. Utramque 
cum Phaethonte et Alcestide felicissimam adulescentis poetae 
artem nobis referre existimo; sed Bellerophontes iam ad Cretensium 
et Medeae acerbitatem propius accedit. 

Sed praeterii adhuc id quod maxime novum et paene incredi- 
bile nos docuit prologus. Nemo enim aut suspicatus est aut sus- 


1 Nec tamen Graecum heroem eum esse credo, nihil enim probat quod Corinthus, 
colonia Romana eum coluit. Ipsum nomen et portentosa capra quam portentoso 
equo insidens obtruncat Cariam, sive Minoam aut Aegeam dicere mavis, originem 
prae se ferunt. 

4Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1048. Hyginus fab. 57.243. Nicolaus Damascenus frm. 16. 


De EvusripPiIpis STHENEBOEA 231 


picari poterat, temporis quam dicere consuevimus unitatem ab 
ullo Graecorum tragico tam graviter laedi potuisse. Nam post- 
quam Bellerophontes in Cariam abiit non tantum menses aliquot 
praeterlabuntur, sed Stheneboea longo tempore mutata est cum 
denuo in scaenam prodit. Deferbuit ira, paenituit eam fraudum, 
rursus amat quem culpa sua interfectum credit. Confiteor me 
ne somniando quidem fingere posse, quomodo Euripides transitum 
scaenarum, sive actus dicere mavis, instituerit. Dechoro omnino 
nihil scimus; sed sive mansit ille in scaena sive abiit, pariter hoc 
abhorret ab omni tragicorum usu. Compara Agamemnonem: 
inane tempus est quod inter nuntium Troia facibus transmissum 
et praeconis adventum interiacet, atque divino cantico a laetitia 
sensim ad dira praesagia traducimur. In Sophoclis Trachiniis 
Deianirae rebus adeo tenemur, ut ne quaeramus quidem quam 
procul Cenaeum Trachine absit. Audaciorem se praestitit Euri- 
pides in Andromacha, neque laudamus quod Orestam Pharsalo 
Delphos abeuntem facit ut Neoptolemum occidat et cantico inter- 
iecto nuntium caedis illius inducit. Sed hoc tantum cum extrema 
Stheneboeae parte componi potest, in qua mulieris quae modo dis- 
cesserat corpus Melo statim adportatur. Prius autem temporis 
intervallum quo magis id consideres eo memorabilius videtur. 
Diceres tripertitam fabulam quasi trium esse dierum, diceres 
Calderoniane fecisse Euripidem. Neque absurde mihi videor hoc 
quoque a trilogiarum usu repetere, sicut olim feci, cum Persas 
Aeschyli, item tripertitam tragoediam, explicabam.’ Quantopere 
gavisus esset Lessingius, si in impugnandis Cornelii unitatibus 
Stheneboea uti potuisset. Quamquam fatendum est, non Corne- 
lium aut Aristotelem sed ipsos tragicos libertatem poeticam tetricis 
legibus coercuisse, quibus maxime effectum est, ut post Sophoclem 
et Euripidem tragoedia nihil procrearet duraturum. Utinam plura 
resuscitentur laetiorum temporum documenta, quae adulescentes 
spectabant eosdem poetas liberrimo pede avia Pieridum loca pera- 
grantes. 

Corollarii loco paucis de alio commentarii Johannei loco agere 
libet, qui sive e chrestomathia Procliana sive e consimili enchi- 


1In Hermae, Vol. XXXII, 382. Errorem quo commovebar ut Persas primum Syra- 
cusis actam putarem, correxi in Actis Berolin. 1901, 1284. 


282 ULBIOH VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF 


ridio rarissima haec de tragoediae Atticae primordiis excerpsit 
testimonia. Leguntur haec apud Rabium, p. 150. τῆς οὖν κωμωι- 
δίας οὕτως εὑρεθείσης ἵνα μὴ πάντη διάχυσις γένηται, τὴν τραγωιδίαν 
εὑρήκασι τὸ συνωφρυωμένον καὶ κατηφὲς ἐκ ταύτης εἰσφέροντες. 
ἄμφω δὲ παρ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίοις ἐφεύρηται, καθάπερ ᾿Αριστοτέλης φησίν. 
ἐν ταύτηι γὰρ ἄνθρωποι πρῶτοι γεγόνασι. διὸ καὶ ταύτηι τῆι πόλει 
μαρτυρητέον τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν μαθημάτων καὶ σπουδαιότατα. τῆς δὲ 
τραγωιδίας πρῶτον δρᾶμα ᾿Αρίων ὁ Μηθυμναῖος εἰσήγαγεν, ὥσπερ 
Σόλων ἐν ταῖς [ἐπιγραφομέναις ᾿Ελεγείαις ἐδίδασκεν, Χάρων 
(Δράκων cod.) δὲ ὁ Λαμψακηνὸς δρᾶμά φησι πρῶτον ᾿Αθήνησι δι- 
δαχθῆναι ποιήσαντος Θέσπιδος. Omnia nova sunt. Nam ab Athe- 
niensibus inventas esse et tragoediam et comoediam etiam in 
Poetica contra Doriensium vindicias adserit Aristoteles; sed tam- 
quam agriculturae, matrimonii, omnis denique humanitatis auc- 
tores Athenienses terrae filios tantum in dialogo poterat laudare. 
Alterum est quod Charo Thespidem primum tragicum in annales 
suos rettulit. Ergo Herodoti aequali idem annus notus erat quem 
nobis quoque chronica Graeca praebent. Tamen nuper Thespi- 
dem fuisse negabant, et multi etiam post inventam Aristotelis 
Rem publicam commenticium dicunt quidquid non in Herodoto 
aut Thucydide est. At hercle, si ante Hellanicum Charo fastis 
Atticis usus est, fuerunt fasti, etiamsi nondum in publicum editi; 
atque si Thespidis annus definitus erat, Pisistrati aequalis anni 
non minus erant definiti. Denique Solo in elegiis Arionis men- 
tionem fecit talem, ut videretur τραγωιδίας δρᾶμα ei tribuere. 
Quod cum quale traditur credi nequeat, quomodo intellegendum 
sit, ex eis facile colligitur quae apud Suidam de Arione leguntur, 
λόγεται δὲ καὶ τραγικοῦ τρόπου εὑρετὴς γενέσθαι (καὶ πρῶτος χορὸν 
στῆσαι καὶ διθύραμβον ἄισαι καὶ ὀνομάσαι τὸ ἀιδόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ 
χοροῦ) καὶ σατύρους εἰσενεγκεῖν ἔμμετρα λέγοντας. Cancellis saepsi 
quae ad Herodotum redeunt; reliqua Solonis reddunt testimo- 
nium. Dixerat ergo aliquo modo, Arionem τραγικὸν τρόπον coluisse 
aut τράγους i. 6. σατύρους canentes induxisse. Rem ita se habere 
et Aristotelem qui tragoediam e dithyrambo prodisse vult cum his 
optime conspirare probe intellexeramus; sed quanti est Solonis 
aequalis testimonio Arionis tragica carmina confirmari. 


WESTEND, BERLIN 


THE MANUSCRIPTS OF CATULLUS 
By WILLtiaAM GARDNER HALE 


In the Classical Review for April, 1906, I published a paper 
entitled ‘“‘Catullus Once More.” In this, I corrected certain 
readings which appeared to me erroneous in Ellis’s new edition, 
and which I saw must cause R temporarily to be misjudged, sum- 
marized my convictions about the relations of R to other MSS, 
including M, and announced that a year’s leave of absence for the 
re-examination of my work upon R and the study of the entire 
tradition had been granted me by my university. Later, the 
university appointed Mr. B. L. Ullman, long trained in my Catullus 
courses, as research assistant to aid me. 

The programme has been carried out in substance. Beginning 
in March, 1907, I have spent nine months in Europe (my time 
being necessarily reduced), and Mr. Ullman has spent over a year 
and a half, beginning in the summer of 1906. In addition, another 
student of the same training, Mr. Evan T. Sage, has rendered me 
the great service of devoting three months, in the spring of 1907, 
to the collation of Catullus manuscripts. Among us, we have collated 
all the manuscripts of the existence of which we have been able to 
get information. 

By far the larger part of the secondary MSS were collated by 
Mr. Ullman, some of them in consultation with me (in the course 
of which my great confidence in his perspicacity and judgment was 
fully confirmed), but many necessarily without consultation. I 
have myself, besides collating various secondary MSS, studied 
anew O, G, R, and M, with a large expenditure of time. Each of 
these four manuscripts, too, Mr. Ullman and I have finally gone 
over together, line by line, after he had made preparatory studies, 
and after many previous discussions of difficult individual points. 

My purpose in the present paper is to publish a preliminary 
list of MSS, asking for information in case any reader knows of 
other MSS, and to discuss a few points of especial interest. 
(CuassIcAL PHILOLoey III, July, 1908) 933 


234 WILLIAM GARDNEB HALE 


In the paper cited, as in earlier papers (thus in Hermes XXXIV, 
pp. 183-44) I have stated these principal convictions: 

G and R are not direct copies of Ver. (the “lost Verona manu- 
script”), but of a copy of this, which for convenience I have called 
alpha. This (likewise lost) manuscript was sent to Coluccio Salu- 
tati in consequence of the well-known letters to Benvenuto of Imola 
and Caspar of Verona written in 1374 and 1375 (the first and third 
on p. xvi of Schwabe’s generally very careful edition are assigned 
to the wrong years). The text of a, not of G, was finished on 
October 19, 1375—a date which fits sufficiently well the date of 
the latest letter of Coluccio. 

All our other MSS (with the exception of T) are descended 
from O, G and R—principally from R, with a certain amount of 
crossing from O and G, and a great deal of crossing to and fro in 
the sub-families descended from R. Compare the following: 

cii. 1: ab antiquo OGR, ab amico R? cett. 

Ixxvili. 9: Verum id non O, Verum non id G, Id uerum non R cett. 

Ixxvi. 11: offirmas OG, gfirmas R cett. 

Ixxxviii. 4: quantum O G Ricc. 606, quamtum D (the archetype of 
D and Ricc. 606 was partly derived from G), tantum R, corrected to 
q*ntum (= quantum) by R' (but in such a way that the long stroke of the 
letter g, which letter was meant to cover the ta, could easily be read as 
only a deleting stroke for the a), tantum cett. 

If this tenet is sound, only that part of the tradition which is 
found in O, G or R can possibly be genuine, and critical editions 
will ultimately give the readings of O,G and R alone. My present 
larger acquaintance with the MSS tends to confirm this conviction. 

Our editors have in general given us only scattering readings 
outside of O and G, while maintaining or assuming that any MS 
cited by them might yield us, at this and that place, the genuine 
tradition or a hint of it, as against O and G. My opposing con- 
clusion was based upon complete collations of twenty-two MSS and 
two partial MSS, and it is to these that I refer in the ‘‘cett.”’ 
above. But I desired a fuller knowledge, feeling that the first 
critical problem, namely what MSS we are to start from in recon- 
stituting the text, could not finally be settled until we could control 
a much larger number. Ultimately, I could not content myself 
with less than all. Before my assistant and I began the work of 


THE MANUSCRIPTS OF CATULLUS 235 


collation, I had made out, partly by the help of old editions of 
Catullus (as Sillig’s), partly by searching old editions of Tibullus 
or Propertius, a list of 96 MSS (Heyse, 1855, mentions 50, and 
says that some 70 exist). This subsequently, in a few cases by 
chance information, but mainly by the ransacking of catalogues, 
rose to the number of 120 MSS (not including the Florilegia, 
etc.) a few of them fragmentary. I possess complete collations 
now of all but Paris. 8231 (fragmentary), seventeenth century; 
Ashb. 973, sixteenth century; Brancaccianus IV, A. 4. (fragmen- 
tary), seventeenth century; Vatic. lat. 7044, sixteenth century; 
and an eighteenth-century copy made for Santen (see list below). 
These, except the last, contain readings seemingly gathered from 
every quarter, and, in the press of time’ and in view of their com- 
plete worthlessness for my purpose, the five were not collated 
(specimens only being taken), though two seventeenth-century 
MSS (fragmentary), contained in Ricc. 2242, were collated in 
full. New collations were made of the twenty-four manuscripts 
which had been collated by or for me before. 

Through the courtesy of M. Léon Dorez, Don Marcelino Me- 
néndez y Pelayo, and the editors of four English journals, I have 
advertised for information about any MSS outside of a list given 
for France, Spain, and Great Britain and Ireland respectively. 
But even for these countries, it is quite possible that my list is 
incomplete; while it is more than possible that MSS still remain 
for Germany, Italy, Switzerland, or Russia. There is nothing from 
the two last-named countries. I should be greatly obliged for 
supplementary information, which should be addressed to me at 
the University of Chicago. I should be glad, also, to receive help 
with regard to any of the unidentified MSS or unfound material 
given at the end.’ 

I have been obliged to dispense with dealing with hand-notes 
found in the margin of printed editions and purporting to give 


1The mere task of collation occupied what corresponded to the entire work of one 
man for two years and six months. 

21 take the opportunity to thank Professor Jacoby of Kiel for his courtesy. He had 
not happened to see my paper in the Classical Review. Before allowing a student of 
his, however, to go to Rome to study R for the purpose of writing a dissertation upon 
it and its relations to other MSS, he wrote to me to ask whether I was continuing my 
work, and, upon learning the facta, at once withdrew his student. 


236 WILLIAM GABDNER HALE 


readings from MSS, though I have done enough to make it seem 
probable that nothing is to be gained from this source. If some- 
one should undertake the work with a different result, I should be 
glad to be found wrong. 

In the list that follows, the initials C T P stand for Catullus, 
Tibullus, and Propertius respectively. The sign + means that 
more or less from other literature, generally humanistic, is also con- 
tained in the MSS against which it appears. The other abbrevia- 
tions explain themselves. 


PRELIMINARY LIST OF CATULLUS MSS 


AUSTRIA 
VIENNA 
K. K. Hofbibliothek 

224.—C. T. P. 
3198.-—-C. Petron. T.-+. Ann. 1440(?). 
3243.—C. (frag.) + 

BELGIUM 

Mons 


Bibliotheque de la Ville 
218. 109.—T. C. P. + 


FRANCE 


CARPENTRAS 
Bibliotheque de la Ville 
361.—C. T. P. 


GRENOBLE 

Bibliotheque de la Ville 

858.—C. T. P. Ann. 1472. 
PaRIs 

Bibliotheque Nationale 
7989.—T. P. C. Petron. +. Ann. 1423. 
7990.—T. C. P. 
8071.—Iuu. C. (frag.) + 
8231.—C. (frag.) +. Seventeenth century. 
8232.—C. Verg. Priap. + 
8233.—C. T. P. Ann. 1465. 
8234.—T. C. 
8236.—P. T. C. Verg. Priap. 
8458.—T. P. C. + 
14, 137.—C. Ann. 1875(?). 


THe MANUSCRIPTS OF CATULLUS 237 


GERMANY 


BERLIN 
K. Bibliothek 

Diez. B. Sant. 36.—C. + 

Diez. B. Sant. 87.—C. +. Ann. 1463. 

Diez. B. Sant. 40.—C. 

Diez. B. Sant. 46.-—C. (Made at end of the eighteenth century for Santen. 
Probably a copy of the Edinburgh MS, then belonging to the 
church of S. Giovanni a Carbonara, Naples.) 

Diez. B. Sant. 56—C. Ann. 1481. 


DRESDEN 
K. Offentl. Bibliothek 
De. 133.—C. P. T. 
GOTTINGEN 
K. Universitdts-Bibliothek 
Philol. 111°.—T. P.C.+. Ann. 1456(?). 


HaMBURG 


Stadtbibliothek 
Scrin. 139. 4°.—T. P. C. 


MounIcH 


K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek 
lat. 473.—C. 
lat. 7471.—C. (carm. xlix only). 


WoLFENBUTTEL 


Herzogliche Bibliothek 
65. 2, MSS.—C. T. P. + 
Gud. 283.—C. 
Gud. 332.—T. C. + 


GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 


CHELTENHAM (ENGLAND) 
Phillipps Library 
3400 (apparently Satbant. 323).—C. 


DouB.uin (IRELAND) 
Trinity College Library 
1078 (formerly Phillipps 9590).—P. C. 


EDINBURGH (SCOTLAND) 


Advocates’ Library 
18. 5.2.—C. Ann. 1495(?). 


238 WILLIAM GABDNER HALE 


LIsconnaNn (IRELAND) 
Library of Samuel Allen, Esq. 
P. T. C. Verg. Priap. + (apparently Phillipps 6433). Ann. 1467. 


Lonpon (ENGLAND) 
British Museum 
10, 886 (apparently Satbant. 329).—C. Ann. 1474. 
11, 674.—T. C. 
11, 915.—C. 
12, 005.—Mart. C. (frag.). 
Burn. 183.—C. 
Harl. 2574.—T. P, C. + 
Harl. 2778.—P. C. 
Harl, 4094.—C. (frag.) + 
Lincoln’s Inn, Library of Walter Ashburner, Esq. 
C. (to lxi. 184) 7. (from ii. 4, 13). Ann. 1451. 


OxFoRD 

Bodleian Library 
Lat. class. e..3.—T. P. C. + 
Lat. class. 6. 15 (formerly Phillipps 3364).—C. + 
Lat. class. 6. 17 (formerly Phillipps 9591).—C. T. +. Ann. 1453. 
Canon. lat. 30.—C. 
Canon. lat. 33.—T. C. 
Canon. lat. 34.—C. T. Verg. Priap. 
Laud. lat. 78.—T. C. 


RicHMOND 
Library of Sydney C. Cockerell, Esq. 


HOLLAND 


LEYDEN 
Universiteits-bibliotheek 
Voss. Lat. in Oct. 13.—T. P. C. + 
Voss. Lat. in Oct. 59.—T. C.-+. Ann. 1453. 
Voss. Lat. in Oct. 76.—C. T. Ann. 1461. 
Voss. Lat. in Oct. 81.—Verg. Priap. Verg. + Petron. Ὁ. T. P. 


ITALY 


BERGAMO 


Biblioteca Civica 
x. 2. 33 (3).—_T. P.C. + 


BOLOGNA 
Biblioteca Universitaria 


2621.—C. Ann. 1412. 
2744.—C. 


THE Manuscripts oF CATULLUS 239 


BRESCIA 
Biblioteca Civica Querintana 
A VII.7—P.C. T. + 
CESENA 


Biblioteca Comunale e Malatestiana 


XXIX., sin. XTX.—C. T. 
FLORENCE 


Biblioteca del fu Signor Landau 

306. 314.—T. C. 
R. Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana 

Plut. XXXIII. cod. XI._—C. P. T. 
Plut. XXXIII. cod. XII—C.T. Ann. 1457. 
Plut. XXXII. cod. XIII.—C. Pers. 
Plut. XXXVI. cod. XXIII.—Ou. Fasti, C.+ 
Strozz. 100.—C. (carm. xlix only)+ 
Ashb. 260 (apparently Saibant. 324).—C. 
Ashb. 973.—C. Sixteenth century. 

R. Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale 
Magl. VII. 948.—Pers. Iuu.C.+. Ann. 1476. 
Magl. VII. 1054.—T. Ὁ. 
Magl. VII. 1158.—C. 
Panciat. 146.—Verg. Priap. T.C.+. Ann. 1475. 

R. Biblioteca Riccardiana 

606.—C. T.+ 
2242. No. 25.—C. (carm. lxiv only)+. Seventeenth century. 
2242, No. 25 bis.—C. (carm. lxiv only)+. Seventeenth century. 


GENOA 
Biblioteca Civica 
MILAN 
Biblioteca Ambrosiana 


MS. Dot 4, 3. 5.—T. Ὁ. 


D 24 sup.—C. 
G 10 sup.—T. C. (frag.)+ 
H 46 sup.—P. T. C.+ 
J 67 sup.—C. P. T. 
M 38 sup.—C. 
R. Biblioteca Nazionale di Brera 


AD. XII. 37 No. 2.—T.C. Ann. 1450 (Ὁ). 


NAPLES 
R. Biblioteca Brancacctana 
IV. A. 4.—C. (frag.)+. Seventeenth century. 
Biblioteca Oratoriana de’ Gerolimint (Filipina) 
MSS. membr. XIII, Pil. X. No. XXXIX.—P. C. T. Staf. Siluae. 
Ann. 1484. 


240 WILLIAM GARDNER HALE 


R. Biblioteca Nazionale 
IV. Ε΄. 19.—C. T. P.+ 
IV. F. 21.—C. P. 
IV. F. 61.—C.+ 
IV. F. 63.—Stat. Achill. Ou. C. (frag.) + 


Papua 
Biblioteca Capitolare 
C. 717.—P. C. + 
PALERMO 
Biblioteca Comunale 
2 0. ᾳ. E. 10.—T. C.+ 
PARMA 


R. Biblioteca Palatina 
Hd. V. 47 (716).—P.C.T. Ann. 1471. 


ῬΈΒΑΒΟ 
Biblioteca Oliveriana 
1217—C. ΤΙ P.+. Ann. 1471. 
Rome 


R. Biblioteca Casanatense 
15.—T. P. C. (frag.). 


H, IV. 121.—C. τ. 


43. ἢ. 20.—T. C.+ 
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 
Barb. lat. 34.—T. P. C.+ 
Ottob. lat. 1550.—C. P.+ 
Ottob. lat. 1799.—C. 
Ottob. lat. 1829.—C. 
Ottob. lat. 1982.—C. (frag.)+ 
Palat. lat. 910.—T.Ou. P.C. +. Ann. 1467(?). 
Palat. lat. 1652.—T. C. P.+ 
Urb. lat. 641.—C. T. P. 
Urb. lat. 812.—C. 
Vatic. lat. 1608.-—C. Verg. Priap. Ann. 1479. 
Vatic, lat. 1630.—Plaut. C. 
Vatic. lat. 3269.—C. Verg. Priap.+ 
Vatic. lat. 3272.—P. T. C.+ 
Vatic. lat. 3291.—Lucr. Pers. Verg. Priap. C. T.+ 
Vatic. lat. 7044.—C. Ann. 1520. 


§. DANIELE 
Biblioteca Civica 


Biblioteca Chigiana 


Biblioteca Corsiniana 


56.—P. T. Ὁ. 


THE MANUSCRIPTS OF CATULLUS 241 


SIENA 
Biblioteca Comunale 
H. V. 41.—C. + 
VENICE 
Biblioteca Naztonale Marciana 
lat. 12. 80.—C. 


lat. 12. 81.—T. C. 
lat. 12. 86.—Ou. C. + 
lat. 12. 153.—T. C.+ 
Museo Civico 


MS. VI. No. 117. 549.—T. P. C.+ 
VICENZA 


Biblioteca Comunale Bertoliana 
G. 2. 8. 12.—T. C. P.+. Ann. 1460. 


SPAIN 


Ex EscoriaLE 


Real Biblioteca 
IV. C. 232.—T. C. P.+ 


IV. C. 22,.—C. (in same volume as the above). 


FLORILEGIA AND EXTRACTS 


AUSTRIA 
KRraKavU 
Universitats- Bibliothek 
No. 3244. DD. XII. 15—Selecta Phalericorum (8:6). Q. Valerii Catuli, 
Veronensis. 
FRANCE 
MARSEILLES 
Bibliotheque de la Vile 
1283.—Extracts. Seventeenth century. 


NICE 
Bibliotheque de la Ville 
In schol. ad Iuu. (See Beldame Rev. de Phil. VI. 76). 
ITALY 
Roms 
ἈΚ. Biblioteca Casanatense 
904.—F lorilegium sententiarum ex latinis scriptoribus excerptarum. 


Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 
Vatic. lat. 7192.—Extracts. Sixteenth century. 


242 WILLIAM GARDNER HALE 


VERONA 
Biblioteca Capitolare 
CLX VIII (155).—F lores moralium autoritatum. Ann. 1329. 


GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 
Lonpon 
British Museum 
[21,908.—fol. 45 v. Benvenuto de Campesanis, Ad patriam, etc.] 


MSS AND OTHER MATERIAL NOT FOUND 
(OR NOT IDENTIFIED) 


MSS of D. Baldassarre Boncompagni (catalog. ed. E. Narducci, 1862) 
No. 219.—Extracts. Seventeenth century. 

Saibanti and Canonici MSS (sale catalogue, Sotheby, 1821): 

No. 95.—C. P. paper. Sixteenth century. 
No. 96.—C. P. paper. 
No. 481.—P. C. (Phellipps 9590?) 

Vatican, Rome (Miintz-Fabre, La bibliothdque du Vatican au xv s., Ecole 
francaise de Rome 1887, p. 101), Poeta Caculi boronensis (sic). 

2 MSS Collegii Jesuitarum, Rome (Heyse, p. 288 implies one. A MS note 
on the title-page of the Corradini edition in Paris, Bibliothéque 
Nationale Rés. gYc 223, mentions two, describing the first as “olim 
Biburgiensis,” paper, containing T,C. On first fol. v there is a 
note, “Tibullus et Catullus exemplare Michaelis Angeli 6 Decimis 
de Burgo Sancti Sepulchri.” The second MS was of parchment, 
written in 1460 by Joannes Carpensis (is this the Carpensis referred 
to in MS notes to Cat. vii. 9 and elsewhere in this edition?). See 
also the Parma edition of 1794, p. vi). 

Cavrianeus (Heyse, p. 288). 

2 Bossiani (Heyse, p. 288). 

Library of Nicolaus Trivisanus.—C. T. parchment (Tomasini, Bibliothecae 
Patavinae manuscriptae publicae et priuatae, 1639, p. 107). 
Library of Federico Ceruti Veronensis (Tomasini, Bibliothecae Venetae 

1650, p. 98). Catullus num. 3 (Leyden Voss. lat. in oct. 76 formerly 


belonged to Ceruti). 
Tournay, Belgium: Inter MSS codices Dionysii Villerii. . . . nune Eccle- 
siae Cathedralis ... . (Bibliotheca Belgica, Sander, 1641, p. 219). 


London: in aedibus Iacobaeis (MSS Angliae, T. ii p. 247, No. 8236). 

“ Angeliani 2 simul conglutinati, memb., quorum primus integrum exhibet 
C., secundus non nisi tria eiusdem poetae elegidia cum nonnullis 
Ovidii poematiis, et veterum epigrammatum libello. Habuit hos 
olim in domestica bibliotheca Antonius Angelius, qui seculo xvi 
humaniores literas in Pisana urbe docuit” ... . (C. T. P. Parma 
edition, 1794, p. vi). 


THE MANUSORIPTS OF CATULLUS 248 


C. T. Ρ. Parma edition, 1794, p. v: “Res igitur nobis fuit pene ex integro 
conficienda: Catulli codices plures 6 pulvere et situ evocandi: 
dispiciendi veteres libri: in aliorum interpretamenta, aut coniecturas 
curiosius inquirendum. .... Quae omnia quum fusius alibi simus 
exposituri, deque toto Veronensis poetae exornandi apparatu uber- 
tim dicturi ....” (was a second volume of notes ever published ?). 

Codex Petri Flerardii (Rob. Titius, Loc. controv. lib. ix, c. 21). 

Paul Heyse, Nachlass δον Catull. 


My preference would be to deal with the whole of my material 
first, testing completely my tenet that all the other MSS come 
from OGR, and publishing the evidence. But this will cost a 
good deal of time, and my collation of R has been long delayed. 
I therefore shall assume that the result will be as I have thought, 
and, as announced some time ago, shall publish a continuous 
restored text of the lost Verona MS, with the readings of O G 
and R below. There will be a number of corrections of previous 
reports upon O, and a larger one of those upon G. 

I wish now to make a few remarks upon my paper in the 
Classical Review, and to add a supplementary report upon several 
other points of especial interest. 


Of the three great MSS, O is to my mind the oldest in its style 
of writing, R the next, and G the youngest. But of course the 
actual order of writing may have been different. An older man 
and a younger may, on the same day, write hands belonging to 
fashions separated by many years. 

Certain things in the ornamentation of the first initial in O, if 
contemporaneous with the text, preclude a date much before 1400. 
The question whether these are original could be settled only by 
expert students of illumination. 

With a feeling that the style of the writing allowed a date fifty 
years earlier than had been assigned to it, I surmised that O might 
have been Petrarch’s copy, and made this suggestion in my paper 
in the Classical Review, discussing the matter no further. The 
principal reason for this ascription was the resemblance of the 
“Catullus Veronensis poeta” written (partly in abbreviations) at 
the top of p. 1 by a hand different from that of the corrector and 


244 WILLIAM GARDNER HALE 


from that of the annotator. Several distinguished scholars have 
agreed that the writing might be Petrarch’s. The light curving and 
rising final stroke of the e’s, the long sweep of the uirgula, and the 
angle of the two strokes of the a’s, are in Petrarch’s manner. But 
other experts have differed; and I am myself now convinced that 
the movement of the writing is somewhat freer than Petrarch’s. 
It was always a difficulty, too, that notes in Petrarch’s style 
of comment were lacking in the margins. Further, several of 
Petrarch’s readings in his quotations differ from those of O; and 
Petrarch, if he had made the emendations involved, would have 
been very likely to note them in his manuscript. I therefore 
withdraw my snggestion. 

Less credit may in consequence at first be given to another 
assignment which I have for some years been inclined to make, and 
which, after very careful comparisons, I now publish with confidence. 
The “corrector” of R (R’) was its owner, Coluccio Salutati. The 
MSS most serviceable to me in the identification have been a MS 
of Seneca’s tragedies and the Ecerinis of Mussato in the British 
Museum (11,987), written thronghout by Coluccio and signed by 
him at the end, and a MS of Petrarch’s De Viris Illustribus in 
the Vatican (Ottob. 1883), which, beside other marginal notes, has 
many by Coluccio. The resemblances are complete, not only in 
the style of the letters (some of which have very marked peculiari- 
ties), but in the manner of making the frequent braces, the draw- 
ing of the pointing hands, and the character of the many examples 
of .No. used for the same purpose. 

I am also convinced that Novati is wrong (Epistolario αἱ 
Coluccio Salutati I. 222, footnote 2) in attributing the ownership 
of G, on the basis of notes which he does not specify, to Coluccio. 
The hands of G’ and Coluccio are similar, but not the same. G 
was perhaps, or probably, written in Coluccio’s office, but it was not 
corrected by him. 

In the article in the Classical Review I gave specimens of the 
proof of what I had before said in several places, that M is a direct 
copy of R. I then supposed that the scribe of M had G also 
before him, and that he selected a few readings from it, though in 
the great majority of cases following R. 


THE MANUSCRIPTS OF CATULLUS 245 


I also said, apropos of an indisposition to welcome R which 
has shown itself in certain quarters, that “the actual facts with 
regard to the relation of G and R will prove to be so dramatically 
overwhelming in favor, not only of R’s position as a primary MS, 
but of its high position, that I am enabled easily to bear the 
present prevailing skepticism.” I further said that G and R had 
too many corrections in common for chance, and hinted that G had 
been corrected upon R, giving as an illustration the readings, 
xiv. 16, fit O G, sit 6" R (both readings being wrong). To this 
I may here find space for a single other specimen. In lxiv. 355, 
O has prosternet (right) and G originally had it; but G is cor- 
rected to the wrong reading prosternens, which is the original and 
untouched reading of R (by the second hand, supplying verses 
omitted by the scribe). Cases like this outweigh a few others, in 
which R is corrected to the right reading, found also in G. 

But there is another possibility, of a still more disturbing kind, 
which must also be reckoned with, namely that G may have been 
corrected upon M; with which must go the conclusion that the 
text of M was not based upon R and G, but upon R alone. The 
facts mentioned are equally well explained upon this hypothesis, 
since, in the main, M is a pretty exact copy of R. Thus in the 
passages mentioned M has 817} and prosternens. We come to this 
question presently. Meanwhile, let it be understood that most 
of the descriptions about to be given bear upon it; and, further, 
that the present discussion is necessarily provisional, not final, 
and that the figures are subject to slight changes. 

In R, after the verses of Benvenuto, we read Catulli Veronensis 
liber incipit ad (perhaps Ad) Cornelium, written by R’ in one 
line, and apparently at one time. G has, by the first hand, Catulli 
Veronensis liber Incipit, with a period. To this G’ adds, in the 
same line, ad Cornelium, with an additional period. 

It will be remembered that, in many cases where there are no 
interstices between poems in O and G, G has a paragraph mark in 
the margin. O, in almost every such instance, has two light lines 
of equivalent force. In all these cases, R has an interstice, and, 
generally, a catch-title in black in the margin, and a title in red 
in the interstice, both by the second hand. 


246 WILLIAM GARDNER HALE 


The exact agreement of O and G as regards the interstices 
makes it morally sure that they represent the arrangement of the 
poems in Ver. The departure of R in giving an interstice wher- 
ever there was a sign of division was then due to a deliberate plan. 
In one place, at xxxviii, R rightly separated a poem where G 
has no paragraph mark, though O has the two lines. In accord- 
ance with his usual custom in such cases, R indented three verses, 
and began with Ale est, putting an m in the margin to guide the 
illuminator. R’ made a condemnatory note upon this in the mar- 
gin, and, after certain erasures, filled in the reserved spaces in the 
verses. He then expunged the whole of the first verse and added a 
uacat (ua at the beginning and cat at the end of the verse). 
This being done, he wrote the verse anew in the interstice, thus 
closing up the page to the eye. The interest in the matter lies in 
the indication that G’ did not get his paragraph marks from his 
archetype, but from R or a descendant of R, and in the fact that, 
in doing his correcting, R’ wrongly repeated the est from verse 1 
in filling up the reserved space in verse 2, thus making the read- 
ing Male est si, from which the reading in nearly all our manu- 
scripts comes. 

Several of the earlier titles in G are by the first hand. Thus 
De phasello was written in the interstice before iv. R has the 
catch-title de phasello in the margin by the first hand, and the 
title De faselo in the interstice by the second hand. In the inter- 
stice before v, the first hand in G wrote De lesbia, which is cor- 
rected by the second hand to Ad lesbiam. In R, the first hand 
wrote de lesbia in the margin, and the second hand wrote Ad 
lesbiam in the interstice—evidently a correction of the probably 
inherited title written by Ε΄. Before vi, G wrote a title of which 
enough remains to make it morally sure that it was Ad se ipsum. 
G’ changed this to Ad Flautum. K has in the margin ad se ip- 
sum, probably by the first hand, to which, farther out in the mar- 
gin, the second hand added ad flauium, evidently again a correction. 
In the interstice, the second hand wrote Ad Flauium (possibly 
with a small 7). 

For xvii, G has the paragraph mark in the margin, and R an 
interstice, but neither has any title. 


THE MANUSORIPTS OF CATULLUS 247 


For xxii, R’ wrote Ad suffenum in the margin, but afterward 
crossed out the second word, replaced it by Varwm, and, when he 
came to fill in the titles in red, wrote Ad Uarum in the interstice. 
G’ wrote ad Varum in the margin. 

For the last two words of xxxii. 1, R’ wrote a variant al Ipsicilla. 
Opposite the interstice he wrote a catch-title Ad Ipsicillam in the 
margin, and in the interstice Ad ipsicillam. GQ’ wrote the title 
Ad Ipsicillam in the margin, though the last words of G’s first 
verse are ipsi thila, corrected by G’ from ipsi thilt (tpst Thila in 
R, tpsi illa in ΟἹ. 

For xxxv, R’ wrote Ad libellum suum de cecilio in the margin 
(this comes down in substance in the CLA family), and Ad 
Cecilium iubet libello loqut in the interstice. G’ wrote Ad 
Cecilium Iubet libello loqui in the margin. 

For xlix, M and two unreported MSS which have come directly 
down from R by separate traditions, apart from the main MSS, 
show that the original title was pretty surely Ad romulum. This 
corresponds in length to an erased catch-title in the margin of R, 
and an erased title in the interstice. G doubtless had originally 
the same, since G’ and Β΄ everywhere else agree in the titles. 

From lxii inclusive on, R’ wrote titles in the interstices only. 

Before lxxvii, O,G and R have an interstice. R has ad ruffum, 
probably by the first hand, in the margin, and Ad Rufum, by the 
second hand, in the interstice. G has Ad Rufum by the second 
hand in the interstice. The interest here lies in the appearance 
of a title by the first hand of R so late in the MS. 

In R, titles are lacking in the interstices only for vii (ad 
lesbiam in the margin), viii (ad se ipsum in the margin), xvii 
(nothing in the margin), and before the wrongly separated At 
pater ut summa, etc., lxiv. 241, for which a hand later than R’ 
has written, in the margin, Fletus egey, which does not appear 
in M. GQ’ has put his regular paragraph mark in the margin, 
but gives no title. O has no indication of any division. Thus 
where R’ has a marginal title, but none in the interstice, G’ has 
written the same title in the interstice; and where R’ has written 
no title, G’ has written none. 

To state conclusions briefly, it looks as if the titles written by 


248 WILLIAM GARDNER HALE 


the first hand and corrected by the second in G had been corrected 
from R or M, and as if the titles by the second hand in R, except 
those which appear in the first hand in the interstices in G or the 
first hand in the margin in R, had been invented by R’ (mainly 
on the basis of vocatives, which appear generally in the first lines 
of the poems in such cases), and copied’ by G’ from R, in the form 
which Β΄ ultimately decided upon, or from M, which everywhere 
follows the title finally adopted by R’. 

At first thought, it would seem to be easy to decide which of 
the two MSS G* had used. But it proves to be difficult. 

The close connection of G* and M is obvious enough, and 
appears in many places. Examples follow: 

liii. 3: crimina OGR; al’ carmina G'; carmina M. 

lxi. 61: Nichil OGR; Nel G? M; al nthil ΜΆ. 

lxiii. 18: dindimene OGR; dindimenee ΟΣ M. 

lxiii. 91: dindimet OGR; dindimenet G? M; al dindimet M?. 

lxiv. 307: His OGR; al’ hic ἃ", Hic M. 

Such cases are indecisive. M may have chosen the variant or 
corrected reading of G’ for the reading in his text, or G’ may have 
taken his variant or correction from the reading in M’s text. 

From the very large number of cases (more than 70) where the 
corrected readings in the text of G and R agree with each other 
and with the readings in the text of M, there is likewise no con- 
clusion to be drawn for our question. G’ may have corrected G 
upon R, or upon M. 

The field where we should look for evidence is in the behavior 
of M (the scribe writing the text) where G and R (or R’) dif- 
fered. There are about 130 examples like the following:’ 

lxi. δι Hymen O; hymenee hymen ORM; O hymenee hymen G. 

Ixvi. 83: colitis OG; queritis RM. 

Ixviii. 51: Nam ORM; Non G. 

1 Bonnet Revue critique d’histoire et de littérature, 1877, 1, 57, rightly says that the 
titles in G must have come from some other MS, and suggests that their source was 
some other copy of Ver. Giri De Locis qui sunt aut habentur corrupti in Catullé 
carminibus, p. 15, likewise says that G’s titles were taken from another MS, and sug- 
gests B, or some other source of the same kind. Both were right in their main point. 
But B does not satisfy the conditions, and the source also turns out not to be an inde- 
pendent copy of Ver. 

2Examples where the differences are only in spelling are not included. But note 
xvii. 6, where M writes sali subsali, mistaking the ci of R’s sali subscili for an a 
(M? adds al’ subscilt), and xxviii. 2, where OG have sarcinulis, and RM sarcinolis. 


THE MANUSCRIPTS OF CATULLUS 249 


On the other side are to be considered the cases following, in 
which M agrees with G or G’ against Ror Ε΄. I arrange them by 


groups: 


A. xxi. 6: experibis OR; experibus G M; al’ bis G? M*. 
χοῦ. 1 and 5: Zinirna OGRM; Zmirna ἘΠ ΜΆ, Similarly in6: Zinir- 
nam OGRM; Zmirnam R™M?. 
lxiv. 52: littore, O; litore G; litora R; litora M; with e written above 
the a by M’. 

B. xxxix. 12: lamiuinus OG; lanuuinus R; lamuinus or lamiunus (no 
apex present) M; lam,uinus Μ'. 
[Ixiv. 180: ne OGRM; ue R'M?; we a late hand in R.] 
lxiv. 211: utsere OR; uiscere GM; with the 8 deleted by a line by 
G', and expunged by Μ'. 

C. Ixi. 151: fuws O, and R? correcting himself; tuts GR? (R omitted the 
verse) M. 
lxiv. 123: in memori OR: in memori G; al’ nemori G*; in nemort 
M; corrected, by an added stroke, to in memort M?, 
Ixiv. 176: requisisset OGR; with an r written above the first 8 by G’; 
requirisset M; corrected to requisisset by ΜΆ. 
Ixiv. 282: pit OGRM?’; parit G’M. 

D. lxiv. 360: flumina OR; lumina G; al flumine 63; flumine M; al’ 
lumina .1᾽. flumina M?’. 
xeviii. 4: carpatias O; carpatians R; in marg. carpatinas (no al’) 
R?; carpatias αι; carpatians M; al’ carpatias M*. 


The first example under D proves conclusively that the corrector 
of M had G before him, and, if this is so, M also may easily, though 
not necessarily, have had G before him. 

In the second under D, Μ᾽ probably meant carpatinas. Com- 
pare his sub tegmid, so written in lxiv. 347, though elsewhere 
spelled out. 

The first example under A seems to indicate that M used G. 
Yet just as experibus was a sheer blunder in G, due to the fact that 
-ibus is a common termination, it may conceivably be merely a 
coincident blunder in M. M makes many worse blunders. More- 
over, the same reading experibus is found in Leidensis 76, a MS 
of the BAV family which stands in no close relation to G, and 
which therefore probably owes the reading to the repetition of the 
same blunder. 


250 WILLIAM GARDNER HALE 


From the Zinirna, -am, examples under A, if the whole argu- 
ment turned upon them, M would seem to have had G before him. 
Still, a certain amount of individual decision must be allowed for 
in the case of every scribe. It was easy to see what the three 
words had originally been in R, and M may have been copying 
from Βὶ alone, but in the present place have preferred the uncor- 
rected readings to the corrected. This is as easy to suppose as 
that he preferred G’s uncorrected to R’’s corrected readings. 

In the third example under A, the correction by M’ is a simple 
and easy one, and in so far of less weight. 

The examples under B are inconclusive. The change from ne 
to we in R in the second example is not in the style of R’ (it may 
conceivably be by Μ᾽, who did at any rate add a variant or two’ 
in R; or it may be by another hand, not much later). Yet, even 
if one assigns the change to R’, M, as above, may have preferred 
the original reading of R to the obviously‘ corrected one (made 
by a heavy stroke below, with no erasure of the full connecting 
stroke of the πη). The third example under B likewise means 
little, since spelling in these MSS is largely a matter of individual 
habit. <A large accumulation of such cases would have weight. 
A single one has practically none. The first example is likewise 
not worth much, since lanuuinus is so written in R that it could 
easily be read lamiuinus. Indeed, Ellis in his recent edition cites 
R as having “‘fortasse” lanuinus (probably an error in transcrib- 
ing lanuuinus), though it certainly has the last-named reading. 
Similarly, all editors up to the present time have reported irru- 
masti for G in xxviii. 10, though it unquestionably has trruinastz. 

The first example under C indicates that M used G, unless 
Coluccio added the correction in R after M was copied, or unless 
(more probably) the fuis in M is an accident, of a kind that fre- 
quently recurs elsewhere. Thus in ix. 8 R wrote ut mos est tuis 
(corrected by Εὖ), though the agreement of OG in the right read- 
ing makes it morally sure that a had twus. 

The second and third examples under C indicate that M had 
G’ before him, unless G was corrected upon M before the corrections 


1Al’ crude, lv. 16, and al’ tibi, lxiv. 276, were not written by R*, and are com- 
pletely in the style of M2. 


THE MANUSCRIPTS OF CATULLUS 251 


(which are sound and easy ones) were made in M by M’. The 
fourth example points to the same alternatives, though with less 
force, since the interpretation of the particular abbreviation used 
is always uncertain (cf. seperata and separata in certain MSS of 
the BAT family in xvii. 19). 

We have to chose, then, between the two following hypotheses: 

I. M used both R and G, after both had been corrected. 

II. a) M was copied from R (and possibly before the death 
of Coluccio, 1406, who in that case may have made a correction or 
two after M was written). 

b) The owners of M and G lent each other their MSS. The 
corrector of M (who may well have been the owner) took a reading 
or two from G, which MS may have been only recently written, 
or have been written earlier, and, like O, have been left uncorrected. 
I incline toward the latter hypothesis. The flourishes above the 
tall letters in the first line of each page point to the execution of 
the text in a chancelry. The most probable hypothesis is that G 
was copied in Coluccio’s office upon the arrival of a; that he then, 
looking at it and being dissatisfied with the irregular arrangement 
of interstices and titles, gave orders to another scribe to make 
another copy, which was R; that Coluccio adopted this, corrected 
it, and put upon it, in his regular manner, its number in his library 
and the indication of the number of folios contained (‘‘71 carte 
39,” written in Coluccio’s hand at the top of p. 1 of the text). 

6) After the corrector of M had used G, the owner of G in 
turn borrowed M, and the corrector (who may again have been 
the owner) thoroughly revised his MS upon the basis of the other, 
getting from it the paragraph marks, the changes in the text 
which are in his hand, and the variants. To these, he added 
certain corrections of his own, not found in M; and the corrector 
of M similarly added a few corrections in the latter after its return 
to him, perhaps casually in the course of a fresh reading. 

For the first alternative (I) as against the second (II), the 
only evidence of weight, unless I have overlooked something, lies 
in the first and second examples under A and the second under B 
(supposing that it was R’ who changed ne to ue in the last- 
named). The readings here, as already said, may be otherwise 


252 WILLIAM GARDNER HALE 


explained. Against this alternative is the fact that the total pos- 
sible number of cases on this side is so small, while in all the 
remainder, out of a total of more than 140, M followed R or 
R’, not G. 

In favor of the second alternative (II) there are several facts, 
or sets of facts. 

The hypotheses (under ὃ and c) that M’ used G in an uncor- 
rected state, and that G’, after correcting G upon M, made further 
corrections in the former, is in harmony with the facts in several 
passages. Thus in xi, α R M have 23 and 24 written as one 
verse, while G* separatesthem. In li, G@ R M have Te in 4, while 
G’ carries it back to the end of 3. . In the same poem, R has 7|}6 
michi and M Ille mihi, while Οὐ has Ille mi, with a space after 
the second word which would easily catch the attention of anyone 
who was examining a manuscript for corrections to his text. It 
is hard to believe that M’, if he had found these sound corrections 
in G, would not have adopted any of them. Similarly Gs correc- 
tion of the second nichil in xlii. 21 to nil, though G’ selected 
the wrong word, would have been likely to set either M or M’ to 
thinking.—These, it should be noticed, are all metrical corrections, 
and the first three are sound. 

The hypothesis that G* used M is in harmony with one strik- 
ing fact in the metrical notes, which in all three manuscripts are 
by the second hands. In general, M’ agrees with R’, even to the 
varying spellings and misspellings, as Faulecij endecasillabi by 
both for v (G’ Faleuticus Endecasillabus), Faleucij endecasil- 
labi by both for vi (α" Faleuticus endecasillabus), and Faleuciu 
endecasill’ by Εὖ and Faleuciti endecasillabum by M’ for xiv 
(G’ Faleutict endecasillabi). In the long note for xi, M’ agrees 
with R’, while Οὗ has a somewhat differing text, though the 
same in substance. But in the note for ii, G’ and Μ΄ have Genus 
metri (Met! ΟΠ) Faleuticum endecasillubum (with a period after 
metri in M), while R’ has Faleuticum endecasillibum (sic). A 
careful examination shows that four lines have been erased in the 
metrical note in M. There are sufficient traces left to make clear 
that what was first written was the entire metrical note (a long 
one) for the first poem. The explanation is simple. In R the 


THE MANUSORIPTS OF CATULLUS 253 


poem of Benvenuto (Ad patriam, etc.) comes first, so that the 
metrical note for i stands opposite the second poem. M”’, working 
hurriedly, copied this note against the second poem of his MS, saw 
his mistake, noticed that the first four words would correspond in 
meaning to R’’s metrical note for the second poem, erased the 
rest, and then copied the long note over again, placing it against 
the first poem, where it belonged. G’* copied the note thus left 
by M’ for the second poem. If he did this, clearly he got his 
metrical notes from M, though varying them in form where he 
chose. No other hypothesis will account for the agreement of G* 
and Μ' in the one place where Μ᾽ has blundered, and the agree- 
ment of R’ and M’ in detail elsewhere. 

Another set of facts remains to be considered. G and R 
always write e, not ae or oe, for these diphthongs. In 11 places, 
beginning at xlvi. 9, G’ has added a hook to an 6, to represent the 
diphthougal spelling. R’ has the hook in 7 places, 4 alone being 
in the text. In none of these is there coincidence with Gs hook. 
Neither corrector, then, got his suggestion from the work of the 
other. 

In all the places where G’ writes a hook, M has the full spelling, 
with separated letters. This cannot be an accident, in view of the 
close relations independently determined. One worker must 
have followed the other. Did M follow G’, or did G’ follow M? 

M’s spelling fluctuates. The commonest form is the single 
letter. But in 66 cases he writes a diphthong with separated 
letters, joined letters, or e with a hook (6 cases only being of the 
last kind). Of these, 6 occur before Οὐ begins to write the hook, 
44 in the space covered by his hooks, and the remainder, 16, after 
he has stopped all corrections.’ Clearly, then, M was not accepting 
suggestions from Οὐ, but G’ was accepting suggestions from M, 
that is, G’ was using M. 

1G? let 6 cases of diphthongal spelling in M go by (4 of quae, 1 of haec, and 1 of 
pene), added the hook first at a word (coetus) where M’s letters were large and strik- 
ing, and then kept up his corrections intermittently until he stopped his work com- 
pletely, confining them, however, to the words caelum and caelestis, coetus, coepitt, 
and proelium, in various inflectional forms, and haec. He covers every case of coefus 
(5), caelum and caelestis (1 each), coepit (2), proelium (1), and 1 case of haec out of 11, 


accepting no case of quae, which occurs 18 times in the same espace along with abundant 
instances of que). 


254 WILLIAM GARDNER HALE 


Finally, a general survey of the treatment of the variants may 
throw light upon our question. 

In order to hold that M used G and R, as against holding that 
G’ owes the mass of his work to M, and the rest to his own fancy, 
we should be driven into the following combination of hypotheses: 

M put the work of R above that of G, and followed the former 
in all but the dozen cases given above (p. 249), out of more 
than 140. But he at the same time set a singularly high value 
upon the judgment of the corrector of G, which led him in 
several cases to adopt the reading of this man’s variant, as against 
the reading of the scribe of R—in other words, he used the MS G 
for the sake of its corrections, not for its text. He was also able 
to distinguish between the variants by G’* and those by G' (though 
no modern scholar succeeded in doing this before Bonnet), and 
to avoid adopting the latter, as in the case of al’ -¢ iii. 14, where 
G' alone was right. He was able also to distinguish where G’ 
had made changes in the text of G, and so to follow his lead as 
against R, as in the cases of dindimenee and dindimenet in 
lxiii. 18 and 91 (though even so late as the time of Schwabe’s 
first edition, 1866, no one had seen that these readings were not 
original). Of the corrector of R, on the other hand, M thought 
so badly that, in the very large number of cases where R’ and G’ 
had the same variant, he felt that the alliance destroyed the value 
of G’’s opinion, and therefore as a rule did not adopt the latter’s 
variant as the reading for his text. But, though so acute in 
detecting the changes made by G’ in the text of G, he failed to 
see that R’ had made many changes in the text of R, and thus 
was deceived into regularly following R’*’s corrected readings 
where those of G differed. 

This combination, even if the facts in detail agreed with it, is 
too fantastic for acceptance. But they do not. 

M does not follow G’’s variant everywhere, 6. g., in lxiii. 19, 
where the latter corrected cedit to cedat, and added al’ cedit 
above. He did not, in fact, follow the variant al’ bis (= experi- 
bis) in the one case, xxi. 6, that has any real weight to support 
the theory that M had the MS G before him as he wrote. He did 
not think badly of R’; for in several places, as in the case of 


Toe MANUSORIPTS OF CATULLUS 255 


endignis, Ixvi. 86, and fratri, lxviii. 91, he adopted R’’s variant 
in his text—and, further, he himself occasionally copied, 
as a variant, a variant by R’, as in the case of al’ ere citatis, 
Ixiii. 18. Further, the theory that M set a superstitiously 
high value upon the judgment of G’ is made difficult to hold by 
the fact that, in the places where M’s reading corresponds to G’’s 
variant, G’ is obviously wrong, as in lxiv. 298, gnatisque OGR, 
al’gratis G*, gratisque M. And the entire hypothesis that M 
gets some of his readings of this kind from Gs variants is 
crippled by the fact that precisely the same combination of a 
blundering or wrong-headed reading and a variant giving the 
right reading of the tradition appears in M a number of times, as 
in xi. 7, septem geminus OGR, septem geminis M, al’ nus M’ (a per- 
fect analogue for the experibus example), without a corresponding — 
combination in G, and occurs 11 times after G’ stops his work. 


It is obvious that the opposite theory accounts vastly more 
easily for the state of affairs. M had gone astray in a number of 
places, and M’ had generally corrected the error by giving the read- 
ing of the archetype R in the form of a variant above. GQ’, 
when M came into his hands, finding so much that was good and 
new in it, and perhaps working provisionally and in a hurry, had 
too much confidence in the manuscript, and here and there added 
M’s blundering reading to G in the form of a variant. His work 
was never completed (in the last quarter of G he neither wrote 
variants nor made corrections, except the hitherto unreported 
Vitas to Multas ci. 1, doubtless done when the paragraph marks 
were put in); and these foolish variants were in consequence 
never erased. 

The acceptance of this theory will also explain certain correc- 
tions, which otherwise are puzzling. Thus: 

xxiii. 19: Quod cutius OR, with al’ Quod culus in the margin by ΒΖ, 
Quod cuius G, corrected to Quod culus by G?, with al’ cuius written 
above by G?; Quod culus M, with al’ cuius written above by M’. 

xxviii. 14: nobis O; nobis al’ uobis R and ΗΕ"; nobis G, changed to 
uobis with al’ nobis written above, by G*; wobis with al’ nobis written 
above, M and M7’. 


lxiv. 309: uitte OGRM (in M with a short first ἑ, which could be 
taken for c); uicte G’. 


256 WILLIAM GARDNER HALE 


It has hitherto seemed strange that G’, instead of writing the 
corrected reading as a variant above the word in the two passages 
first mentioned, should have corrected the text and written the 
former reading above. But this procedure is at once intelligible 
if G* was correcting from M, who had here inverted the readings 
of ἢ and R’. The same hypothesis explains the change in the 
third example. 

I am at present forced, then, to think that G was corrected, 
not upon its archetype a, nor even upon its sister MS R, but upon 
M, one of the daughters of R. Further light may come with further 
study; but it seems improbable that the result will be changed. If 
it stands, then our critical editions will ultimately give the readings 
of OGR and R’ alone, the work of G’ having no value for the 
text. Iregret the loss of this aid, in spite of the fact that every- 
thing of importance by G’ is also found in the work of R or Β΄. 


Tus University oF CHICAGO 


ON SOME PASSAGES OF CATULLUS AND MARTIAL 


By J. P. ῬΟΒΤΘΑΤΕ 


I. CATULLUS Ikxvi. 75 ff.: 


non his tam laetor rebus quam me afore semper 
afore me a dominae uertice discrucior 
quicum ego, dum uirgo quondam fuit, omnibus expers 
unguentis, una milia multa bibi. 
nunc uos, optato cum iunxit lumine taeda, 
non prius unanimis corpora coniugibus 
tradite nudantes reiecta ueste papillas 
quam iucunda mihi munera libet onyx. 


When a passage has provoked as much interpretation and 
emendation as the couplet 77-78 above, we may with certainty 
infer either that its difficulties are insoluble, in which case the 
prudent will leave it alone, or that their solution depends upon 
considerations that are likely to have eluded observation. Here 
fortunately the general thought is clear enough. The tress of Bere- 
nice’s hair expresses its grief at being now separated from its mis- 
tress’ head on which it had been drenched with precious ointments, 
and appeals to happily mated wives to remember it in their offer- 
ings on their nuptial night. The glaring absurdity of the con- 
junction of ‘omnibus expers unguentis” with “ana milia multa 
bibt” has led to a crop of “emendations” which may be dismissed 
in the words of Professor Vahlen (Hermes, Vol. XV, p. 269) 
‘quae Lachmannus, quae Hauptius aliique nouarunt praetereo 
quorum nihil est quod sua probabilitate placeat.”” The interpre- 
tations, in themselves, deserve as short a shrift. But they may be 
cited in part to bring out the points upon which attention must 
be centered. W. Johnson, Nake, and Mr. F. W. Cornish, the 
last English translator of Catullus, consider the text to mean 
‘tin whose company I that now am robbed of all unguents drank 
in many thousand unguents while she was yet a maid.” For this, 
Latinity requires the insertion of lla nunc (omnibus unguentis 
expers). The current explanation may be illustrated from the 
[CLassicaL PxHILoLoey III, July, 1908) 257 


258 J. P. Postaarr 


translations or paraphrases of Professor Vahlen, loc. cit., ‘‘quicum 
ego, quae, dum quondam uirgo fuit illa’ (higher up the page 
‘dum uirgo fuit domina”), ‘‘omnibus expers eram, unguentis una 
(potione) milia multa bibi,” and Professor Ellis “with whom I, 
as I was a stranger to all unguents while Berenice was in the for- 
mer time of her virginity, so 1 have since drained in her company 
many thousands of oils.” Mr. Ellis rightly says that ‘“‘the con- 
struction is like Seneca Epist. 99. 16, ‘‘clarius cum audiuntur 
gemunt, et tacit: quietique dum secretum est, cum aliquos uidere, 
in fletus nouos excitantur,” ‘“‘in which faciti—secretum est is 
opposed as a period to cum aliquos uidere, in fletus nouos exci- 
tantur just as expers o. unguentis, dum uirgo quondam fuit is 
opposed to una milia multa bibi.” There is likeness between the 
two places. But unlikeness also, since in Seneca the statement is 
general, but here particular. And this difference is essential. It 
may be observed on both readings, first, that both require the 
insertion of illa to make Latinity; secondly that, though pro- 
fessedly taking quondam with dum fuit, they either ignore its 
force altogether or remove it outside its clause. This is indicated 
by Professor Vahlen’s alternative paraphrase and by a variant 
proposed by Professor Ellis which, while keeping the same punctua- 
tion as before, he translates, ‘with whom in the old times while 
she was still a girl sprinkled (expersa) beyond all others with 
every kind of unguent, I absorbed many thousand essences.” 
The truth is that, as the Seneca parallel shows, it is not required 
with dum fuit; and that, if inserted, then, just as consule Pompeio 
quondam in the epigram discussed below means ‘“‘in the former 
consulship of Pompeius” as opposed to his present consulship, so 
these words should contrast Berenice’s former virginity with her 
present virginity—an absurdity which interpretation has, at all 
costs, to avoid. But quondam, though superfluous and worse with 
dum fuit, is badly wanted with expers. And this the Latin should 
be punctuated to show: 
quicum ego, dum uirgo quondam fuit omnibus expers 

unguentis, una milia multa bibi 

or, if three more commas are preferred, 
quicum ego, dum uirgo, quondam, fuit, omnibus expers 
unguentis, una milia multa bibi. 


On Some PassaGes oF CAaTULLUS AND MARTIAL 259 


This order of words for ‘“quondam, dum uirgo fuit, omnibus 
expers unguentis” is a hyperbaton which it is not difficult to 
parallel from Catullus: 44. 7 ff. “tussim, | non immerenti quam 
mihi meus uenter | dum sumptuosas appeto dedit cenas” also in a 
dum clause; and in this very poem 18 “non ita me diui wera gemunt 
iuerint.” The legitimacy of the collocation quondam expers 
requires no proof: but as an illustration we may take Lygdamus iii. 
L 23 ‘“‘haec {δὶ utr guondam nunc frater, casta Neaera, | mittit.” 

Having, I trust, disproved the first alternative explanation of 
the inveterate disagreement of scholars about this passage, I will 
conclude with a word upon the second. Students of science in 
its various forms take a number of precautions to prevent their 
investigations being vitiated by the intrusion of their own persons 
or personalities: students of language and literature take next to 
none. Now in the personal equation of the modern scholar there 
is no more constant or more potent member than the notion that 
the construction of a sentence follows its order or that proximity 
of words involves connection of thoughts. Soif quondam stands 
before fuzt, with fut will it be construed, whatever the clamor of 
sense or context. That here is the source of the mischief, we may 
confidently aver, when we note that a scholar who has paid par- 
ticular attention to the prevalence of hyperbaton in Latin poets 
writes thus upon its character: 

If anyone remarks on this that such an arrangement is contorted and 
unnatural, and wonders how the ancients, lacking our system of punctua- 
tion, could understand it at all, I shall cordially agree with him.! 

It may be doubted whether the writers from whom Professor 
Housman quotes would have acknowledged that their order was 
‘“‘contorted and unnatural” or have realized that a comprehension 
of their meaning is facilitated by this sort of thing —‘fecit, ut ante, 
cauam, docui, spissescere nubem’ Lucr. vi. 176. The modern system 
of punctuation, developed, it would appear, in part to mitigate the 
ambiguity which the absence or the inadequacy of inflexions entails 
upon a language, is frequently found of service by the reader who 
would escape from the obligation of grasping the sound and sense 
of a sentence as a whole. But the ancients neither required it for 


1Professor A. E. Housman, Journal of Philology XVIII, p. 6, where he gives a 
copious collection of hyperbata. I have had added some more in A.J. P. XVII, p. 41. 


260 J. P. Posraatr 


the former use nor desired it for the latter. They did not write 
for the eye of the skipper and the skimmer, but for the voice and 
the ear of people to whom the form and frame of the ancient sen- 
tence was a very part of their consciousness. And when so read 
we may be certain that there is not one of these ‘‘contorted” 
sentences which is not at once intelligible—and that one not least 
of all, which we have seen has been so long misunderstood. 

I will add two examples where our modern habits of reading 
interfere with our appreciation of an ancient’s meaning. In Ari- 
stophanes Lysistrata 628: 

καὶ διαλλάττειν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀνδράσιν Λακωνικοῖς 
“πρὸς has nothing to do with ἡμᾶς next to which it stands, but sig- 
nifies “besides.” And in Statius Thebais x. 827 ff.: 


hactenus arma tubae ferrumque et uolnera; sed nunc 
comminus astrigeros Capaneus tollendus in axes. 

non mihi iam solito uatum de more canendum; 

maior ab Aoniis poscenda amentia lucis. 830 
mecum omnes audete deae! siue ille profunda 

missus nocte furor Capaneaque signa secutae 

arma Iouem contra Stygiae rapuere sorores 

seu uirtus egressa modum seu gloria praeceps 6. q. 8. 

Here Capanea goes primarily with arma rather than with 
signa which stands next to it, since the crucial point is why Capa- 
neus fought against Iuppiter. And if it be not so taken, rapuere 
arma will have its proper sense of ‘caught up arms’ and the 
Eumenides will be said to do the fighting themselves. 


II. CATULLUS cixiii: 

Consule Pompeio quondam duo, Cinna, solebant 
Meciliam. facto consule nunc iterum 

manserunt duo, sed creuerunt milia in unum 
singula. fecundum semen adulterio. 

No one now doubts who is the subject of this epigram. It is 
Mucia, the daughter of Q. Mucius Scaeuola, and the third wife of 
Pompey, with whom, as Catullus hints here, Julius Caesar had an 
intrigue. Pleitner who made this discovery not unnaturally 
thought that her name in some form or other, should appear in the 
text, and he conjectured Mucillam, the diminutive adopted, e. g., 


On Some PassaGes oF CAaTULLUS AND MARTIAL 261 


by Schwabe, Baehrens,’ Riese, and myself in the Corpus text. 
The obstacle to this change is that the manuscripts present another 
name, and that an actual one. For Mecilia(m) means Maecilia(m). 
Is it possible to resolve the difficulty without deserting the tradi- 
tion? Let us see. 

First, to deal with the alteration of the name. There is 
nothing more contumelious, nothing more characteristic of fash- 
ionable or aristocratic insolence’ than to allude to a person by 
a soubriquet or a perversion of his proper name. This weapon 
Catullus did not scruple to use, as we know from the offensive 
nickname (Mentula) which he applied to his enemy Mamurra. 
It is therefore in keeping with what we know of him that he should 
miscall a lady belonging to the illustrious family of the Scaeuolae | 
by an obscure and plebeian name. But why by this particular one? 
Shall we rest content with the explanation that it was the one most 
convenient to his verse? ΤῸ contemporaries of Catullus and Pom- 
pey it would suggest another name, associated with one of the least 
creditable incidents of that statesman’s career. Maecilia corre- 
sponds, syllable for syllable, to Aemilia, the name of his previous 
wife. The circumstances of her marriage to Pompey are thus 
given by his biographer Plutarch Pomp. 9 (tr. Long): 

As Sulla admired Pompeius for his superior merit and thought that 
he would be a great support to his own interests, he was anxious in some 
way to attach him by family relations. Metella, the wife of Sulla, had 
also the same wish, and they persuaded Pompeius to put away Antistia 
and to take to wife Aemilia, the stepdaughter of Sulla, the child of Metella 
by Scaurus, who was living with her husband and was pregnant. This 
matter of the marriage was of a tyrannical character and more suited to 
the interests of Sulla than conformable to the character of Pompeius, for 
Aemilia, who was pregnant, was taken from another to be married to him, 
and Antistia was put away with dishonor and under lamentable circum- 
stances, inasmuch as she had just lost her father also, and that too on her 
husband’s account; for Antistius was murdered in the Senate-house 
because he was considered to be an adherent of Sulla for the sake of 
Pompeius; and the mother of Antistia having witnessed all this put an 


1 Baehrens (Commentary) thinks that it should be written Moecillam, ‘‘forma 
plebeia”’ which is no improvement. 

2This may be illustrated by an anecdote from actual experience. A εὐγενής who 
expected to be first in his examination thus referred to a contemporary rival whom I 
will here call Fox. ‘‘ Who else is there?’’ he said; ‘*there’s a man called Ox or Por!”’ 


262 J. P. Postaate 


end to her life, so that this misfortune was added to the tragedy of the 
marriage; and in sooth another besides, for Aemilia herself died immedi- 
ately afterwards in childbirth in the house of Pompeius.' 

It seems then not improbable that in his selection of a name 
Catullus flings out at Pompey a taunt, the point of which a con- 
temporary would easily comprehend, that he who had robbed 
another man of his wife was himself treated no better than he had 
thus deserved. ὃ γὰρ ἐς τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἐποίεις αὐτὸς τούτοισιν 
ἐπλήγης ---- Aristophanes Ran. 1049. 

1 pass now to what seems a distant topic—the variants for the 
proper name Caecilianus in certain codices of Martial. This word, 
as an appellation of fictitious persons satirized on different accounts, 
is the vulgate reading in fifteen epigrams. In two places’ Cinna 
then is substantial manuscript support for another name, in i. 73 
that of A“ (Lindsay’s first class) and in ix. 70. 6, 10 that of B4 
(his second class). This name is ‘‘ Maecilianus.” And we must 
first ask if it has any claim to have come from the hand of Martial 
himself. Schneidewin thought it had; for it stands in his text at 
i. 73. If it has, then Caecilianus must be an intruder in one or 
other of the poems cited. There is no reason why it should not 
be. Inall the four places where Caedicianus is found, one or more 
of Schneidewin’s codices give Caecilianus and the same is true of 
Sextilianus in x. 29.6. More striking proof still that a wrong 
name may creep into our text of Martial may be gathered from the 
dissension of the MSS at vi. 88. Here A“ C4 give Caecilianus, 
but ΒΑ Sosibianus ; and it is certain that either the one or the other 
of these readings is an importation from other places where they 
occur—12 places, say, for Caecilianus and 3 for Sosibianus. A 
purely accidental confusion is quite out of the question. 

There being thus sufficient evidence that a proper name in an 
epigram of Martial is liable to be assimilated to a name of similar 
scansion in other epigrams, it remains to consider whether this 
may have happened to Maecilianus and Caecilianus. The first 
name, to say the least, is incomparably the rarer; and the tempta- 
tion to change it, when, moreover, the change was so slight, would 
be very considerable. And this would account for the fact that it 


1Q0ompare Sulla 33 and Zonaras 10. 1. 
31 neglect iv. 15, as the attestation is doubtful. Lindsay’s note is ‘‘ meciliane corr. 
cec, O4 ut uid. (in Comm. aD camsCILIANUM).”’ 


On Some PassaGes OF CATULLUS AND MARTIAL 263 


is supported only by minorities among the MSS. We may infer, 
then, that the testimony of the MSS of Martial does not discoun- 
tenance the presumption that Maecilianus was the original name 
in i. 73 or in ix. 70, or, it may be, in both. 

The great influence which the writings of Catullus had upon 
his confessed admirer the epigrammatist is known to all the world, 
and I shall not be accused of rashness if I endeavor to trace a con- 
nection with a piece so notorious as the one before us. Martial 
i. 73 and Catullus cxiii resemble each other in more than one 
respect. The subject in both cases is a wife’s infidelity, and it is 
treated in both cases with outspoken coarseness. This cannot 
count for very much; but what appears to be more significant is 
that in both cases the hint of the epigram is a prodigious increase 
in the lady’s admirers. In Catullus the rise is from duo to duo 
milia,; in Martial from nemo gratis to ingens turba. It would 
make the Martial epigram more biting if instead of a shadowy 
Caecilianus we had a Maecilianus, a ‘“‘Maecilia-man” as we might 
say, whose measures to preserve his wife’s fidelity were as unfor- 
tunate as those of the famous cuckold in Catullus. 

The circumstances of ix. 70 are different, but they are simple 
enough if we have the Latin before us. Accordingly I will give 
the reading Maecilianus the same chance here which Schneidewin 
has given it in i. 73. I will place it in the context, and, with the 
shortest of paraphrases to show what, if accepted, it would mean, 
I will leave the question of merit to the unbiased judgment of the 
reader. 


Dixerat ‘o mores! o tempora!’ Tullius olim 
sacrilegum strueret cum Catilina nefas, 

cum gener atque socer diris concurreret armis 
maestaque ciuili caede maderet humus: 

cur nunc ‘o mores!’ cur nunc ‘o temporal!’ dicis? 
quod tibi non placeat, Maeciliane, quid est? 

nulla ducum feritas, nulla est insania ferri; 
pace frui certa laetitiaque licet. 

non nostri faciunt tibi quod tua tempora sordent, 
sed faciunt mores, Maeciliane, tui. 


Cicero exclaimed on the morals of his times in the age of a Catiline 
and the conflicts of a Caesar and a Pompey. But why do you doso now, 
Maecilianus? It is not our times that are to blame. It is you whose 
morals are a Maecilian’s. 


THE PALM OF VICTORY 
By F. B. TaARBELL 


No antique symbol is more familiar to us than the palm 
branch’ carried in the hand in token of victory. Given to suc- 
cessful competitors in the athletic and other contests which 
abounded in the Greek and Roman world, it acquired, at least in 
metaphor, a universal significance and was one of the commonest 
attributes of the goddess Victory herself. References to it in 
the literature and representations of it in the art of the Roman 
imperial period are so numerous that it would be idle to attempt 
a list of them. It is enough to cite the dialogue of Plutarch 
which discusses the question why the palm was universally 
bestowed upon victors in the games.’ 

No ancient writer who speaks of the palm of victory suggests 
that the symbol was not of high antiquity, while Plutarch in two 
passages’ and Pausanias in one‘ expressly connect it with the 
establishment of the Delian games by Theseus. Nevertheless it 
does not take much inquiry to discover that this symbol is con- 
spicuously absent from the literature and the art of Greece down 
to about the end of the fifth century B.o.° Various writers of 
this earlier time refer literally or figuratively to the crown of vic- 
tory; Pindar and Bacchylides especially are constantly singing 
of the crown: but no one of these has a word to say of the 


1The word ‘branch,’’ as here used, though ascientifically incorrect, is well 
established in popular English. 

2 Quaest. Conviv. vill. 4. especially §1: τί δήποτε τῶν ἀγώνων στέφανον ἄλλος ἄλλον 
ἔχει, τὸν δὲ φοίνικα πάντες. 


8 Theseus 21. 8; Quaest. Conviv. viii. 4. 8. 4Ὑ}}}. 48, 3. 
5The fact has been repeatedly remarked. In 1884 Kiessling in a note on Horace, 
Odes i.1.5eaid: ‘‘Ausser dem Kranz... . erhielt der Sieger, aber erst seitdem der 


Orient durch Alexander erschlossen, regelmAssig einen Palmzweig.’’ This puts the 
general adoption of the palm of victory too late. The earliest correct statement with 
which I am acquainted was made in 1893 by Milchhéfer, in Archdologische Studien 
H. Brunn dargebracht, p. 62. Some of the references given below to works of art are 
borrowed from Milchhdfer’s note. 

Simon. 135; Herod. viii. 26; Soph. Aj. 465; Thuc. ii. 46; Eur. J. 7. 12, and often. 


(CLassicaL ParLo.oey ITI, July, 1908) 264 


THe PaLM oF VIOTORY 265 


palm." On the monumental side the evidence is of the same tenor. 
From the period in question we neither possess nor hear of any 
statue, relief,’ or picture of an athlete or of Victory with a palm 
branch. The full force of this negative evidence can be appre- 
ciated only after consideration of its abundance and its wide geo- 
graphical distribution. The list of examples includes not only 
several athlete statues of which we know the motives and several 
statues of Victory,’ but a quantity of Attic vases and the exten- 
sive series of Elean and Sicilian coins with representations of 
Victory. If this negative evidence, literary and monumental, 
does not cover every nook and corner of the Greek world, it at 
least warrants us in saying that the palm as a symbol of victory 
was unknown at the four great national festivals, the Olympia, 
Pythia, Isthmia, and Nemea, at Athens, and probably at all the 
more important athletic centers. 

Then, somewhere about 400 B. Ο., unheralded by any extant 
author, the palm of victory begins to make its appearance. Thus 
Eupompus of Sicyon, who flourished at about that date, painted 
a picture of a victor in some athletic contest—we are not told 
what or where—holding a palm branch.‘ Somewhat later the 
painter Nicias represented Nemea, who personifies the Nemean 
games, with the same symbol.’ Of extant representations the 
earliest is probably that on a coin of Elis, struck about 400 8. o., 
where a palm is put in the hand of Victory.” It is likely that 
this indicates a usage already coming in at Olympia. That the 
same usage existed at Athens from 367 B. 0. onward is attested 
by at least six Panathenaic amphoras.’ By the time of Philip 11 
the symbol had become familiar in Macedon, as witness the tetra- 


1Frg. 75 of Pindar, in which Boeckh found the palm at Nemea (ll. 15, 16), owed 
this to improbable emendation of a corrupt text. 


2Copies of Greek athlete statues having a support in the form of a palm trunk or 
having a palm branch sculptured on the support are not evidence, except for the late 
period in which the copies were executed. We have no reason for supposing that the 
relief at Tegea representing the hero Iasius with a palm in his right hand (Paus. viii. 
48. 1) was an early work. 

3 Bulle in Roscher Lexikon der griech. u. rom. Mythologie, s. v. "" Nike,”’ 384 ff. 

4Pliny N. H. xxxv. 75. 5 Ibid. 27, 28. 

6Gardner Types of Greek Coins, Pl. VIII, 4. 

7 Monumenti dell’ Inst. X, 48 41. 2; £5; g 10, 11, 12. 


266 F. B. ΤΑΒΒΕΙΙ, 


drachms on whose reverse a boy rider is now crowning his horse 
and now carrying a palm.’ Before the end of the fourth century 
it was established even in Campania, where a didrachm has on 
its reverse Victory attaching a wreath to a palm branch.’ To 
about the same period one or two South Italian vases on which 
the symbol appears may belong.’ 

The evidence cited suffices to show that before the end of the 
fourth century the palm had become a generally accepted symbol 
of victory. Livy, writing of its introduction into Rome in 293 B.0., 
knows of it only as at that time a usual Greek symbol.‘ The 
earliest extant reference to it in literature, so far as I have been 
able to discover, is by Chrysippus’ in the third century B.o. He 
speaks of it in the familiar way in which a writer of the fifth 
century speaks of the crown of victory. 

The palm must have come into use at some one athletic center 
and spread from there over the rest of the Greek world. The 
suggestion of Robert,’ repeated by Bulle,’ that the starting-point 
was Nemea seems to be based upon nothing but the picture by 
Nicias of ‘‘Nemea palmigera” and perhaps the corrupt fragment 
of Pindar, referred to above (p. 265, n. 1). This suggestion 
may be summarily dismissed as without probability. Inasmuch 
as the palm tree was sacred to Apollo, we naturally think of the 
two great centers of Apolline worship, Delphi and Delos; and it 
is noteworthy that these are the only two places whose claims are 
advanced by speakers in the dialogue of Plutarch cited above 
(p. 264). But from words which Plutarch puts into the mouth 
of one of his speakers’ it appears that the claim of Delphi was 
not supported by legend, whereas there was a current story 

1Head Historia Numorum, p. 197. 

2Head op. cit., p. 28. 

8 Compte rendu de St. Pétersbourg, 1862, Pl. VI; Millin Peintures de vases antiques 
I, Pl. 24(?); Gazette arch., 1879, p. 32(?). 

4Livy 10,47: palmaeque tum primum, translato e Graecia more, victoribus datae. 

Quoted by Plutarch, De Stoicorum repugnantiis, § 23 (1045 D): πότερον ἕξεστι 
τὸν BpaBeurhy τὸν φοίνικα, ὁποτέρῳ βούλεται, ἀποδιδόναι; 

6Preller-Robert Griech. Mythologie I. 4965, n. 4. 

TRoacher Lexikon d. griech. u. rom. Mythologie II, 331. 


8. ἀλλὰ ταῦτά γ᾽," εἶπεν ‘ody ἱστορίας οὐδὲ περιηγητικῶν ὅδωδε βιβλίων x. τ. λ.;"" 
Quaest. Conv. viii. 4. 5. 


THE PauLm or VIoTORY 267 


according to which the palm was first given by Theseus in insti- 
tuting the Delian games. Now the Delian games, which had 
become extinct or nearly so, were revived and reorganized by the 
Athenians in 426.' Does not this suggest a plausible hypothesis? 
The Athenians, we may conjecture, either at the first celebration 
of the new quadrennial festival or not long thereafter, bestowed 
palms upon the victors in the games. In so doing they may 
possibly have been reviving an ancient local custom, but more 
probably they were introducing a novelty. From Delos the 
practice spread to other places till it became universal. On such 
a basis of fact the legend about Theseus would naturally spring up. 

The only point that remains obscure is the reason for the 
popularity of the new symbol. On this I cannot shed much 
light. It must be remembered that neither on the island of 
Delos nor elsewhere did the palm supplant the crown; rather it 
was a supplement to the crown. The matter would be more in- 
telligible, if we could find two different occasions subsequent to 
a victory, at one of which the palm was bestowed, and the crown 
at the other. But any one who has examined the evidence mar- 
shaled by Petersen in Die Kunst des Pheidias, pp. 43, 44, must 
be convinced that the crown, or at any rate a crown, was pre- 
sented immediately after the conclusion of the contest. It seems 
almost certain that the palm was given at the same time. This 
is a probable inference from a relief which shows an athlete with 
both crown and palm,’ and is pretty plainly implied by Vitruvius 
when he speaks of the victors at the four great Greek festivals as 
in conventu stantes cum palma et corona.’ If this is right, it 
cannot be urged that the palm filled a long felt want by supply- 
ing a ceremonial to an occasion previously left bare. But a 
practice which began at one center so important as Delos might 
be imitated elsewhere from a desire not to do less than was done 
at Delos in the way of celebration. Moreover, palm branches 
have the great advantage over most crowns of being much less 
perishable. The natural tendency to imitation, reinforced by the 
advantage of having in the palm branch a symbol of victory more 


1Thuc. iii. 104. 2, 6. 8IX Praef. 
2 Arch. Zeitung, 1861, Pl. OLIII. 


268 F. B. TarBELL 


enduring than the traditional crown, may account sufficiently for 
the spread of the new custom. 

Although in popular estimation the palm came to be of at 
least equal importance with the crown, it does not seem to have 
been officially so regarded. To the end there were ἀγῶνες στεφα- 
virat, but we never hear of ἀγῶνες φοινικῖται. 

Thus far we have had in view the palm branch carried in the 
hand. But some modern books’ of reference speak also of the 
palm as used for crowns of victory. This is based solely upon a 
passage of Pausanias (viii. 48), which has been previously re- 
ferred to and must now be quoted in full. The received text is 
as follows: 

ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ στήλῃ πεποιημένος ἐστὶν Ἰάσιος, ἵππου τε ἐχόμενος καὶ κλάδον 
ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ φέρων φοίνικος - νικῆσαι δὲ ἵππῳ φασὶν ἐν ᾿᾽᾿Ολυμπίᾳ τὸν Ἰάσιον, ὅτε 
Ἡρακλῆς ἔθετο ὃ Θηβαῖος τὰ Ολύμπα. "Ev μὲν δὴ Ὀλυμπίᾳ κοτίνου τῷ νικῶντι 
δίδοσθαι στέφανον καὶ ἐν Δελφοῖς δάφνης, τοῦ μὲν ἤδη τὴν αἰτίαν ἀπέδωκα ἐν τοῖς 
ἐς ᾿Ηλείους, τοῦ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔπειτα δηλώσω’ ἐν Ἰσθμῷ δὲ ἡ πίτυς καὶ ἐν Νεμέᾳ 
τὰ σέλινα ἐπὶ τοῦ Παλαίμονος καὶ τοῦ ᾿Αρχεμόρον τοῖς παθήμασιν ἐνομίσθησαν. 
οἱ δὲ ἀγῶνες φοίνικος ἔχουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ στέφανον ἐς δὲ τὴν δεξιάν ἐστι καὶ παν- 
ταχοῦ τῷ νικῶντι ἐστιθέμενος φοῖνιξ, ἐνομίσθη δὲ ἐπὶ τοιῷδε. Onoda ἀνακομιζό- 
μενον ἐκ Κρήτης φασὶν ἐν Δήλῳ ἀγῶνα ποιήσασθαι τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι, στεφανοῦν δὲ 
αὐτὸν τοὺς νικῶντας τῷ φοίνικι. 

The logic of this passage is confused, but Frazer is the only 
editor who seems to have questioned the soundness of the text. 
His note reads: “ἐς δὲ τὴν δεξιάν ἐστι καὶ πανταχοῦ τῷ νικῶντι 
ἐστιθέμενος φοῖνιξ. These words have the appearance of being 
interpolated. The present participle is particularly strange.” 
The remedy here proposed is worse than the disease, for the 
omission of the sentence quoted throws the explanatory remarks 
of Pausanias out of connection with the sculptured relief which 
occasions them. As for the present participle, ἔστιν ἐστιθέμενος 
is unobjectionable for ἐστίθεται. The trouble, if trouble there 
be, must lie elsewhere, and to me it seems probable that the word 
φοίνικος, or, better, the whole sentence, οἱ δὲ ἀγῶνες φοίνικος ἔχουσιν 
ot πολλοὶ στέφανον, should be expunged as a gloss. In supporting 
this suggestion I do not lay stress chiefly on the gain in logical 


1K. g., Liddell ἃ Scott Greek-English Lexicon, 8. Ὁ. φοῖνιξ; Daremberg et Saglio 
Dictionnaire des antiquités I, Ὁ. 1530; Hehn Culturpflanzen (7th ed., 1902), p. 269. 


Tue Paum or VICTORY 269 


coherence. which is secured by the change. The main objections 
to the impugned sentence are that it is not true and that, if it is 
not true, Pausanias could hardly have believed it true. 

I say, it is not true that the crown at most contests in Pau- 
Sanias’ time was made of palm. To be sure, literary information 
on this subject, apart from the four great festivals, is scanty. 
From Pindar and the scholia to Pindar we learn that a myrtle 
crown was bestowed at the Epidaurian Asclepieia,' the Megarian 
games of Alcathous,’ the Argive Heraea,’ and the festival of the 
sons of Heracles at Thebes.‘ At the Athenian Panathenaea the 
crown was of olive; at the Neapolitan Augustalia, of ears of 
wheat for men, of something else (laurel?) for boys;° at the 
Capitolia in Rome, of oak;’ at the agon Albanus, of olive, not 
natural, but wrought of gold.’ 

Another source of information as to the materials of agonistic 
crowns is afforded by the sculptured representations of such 
crowns’ on marble pedestals, etc. It is evident that the sculp- 


1Pind. Isth. vii. 147-50. In an inscription from Priene (Inschriften von Priene, 
268 ὃ, 6) a crown worn at this festival is said to be of θαλλός. This does not imply a 
change after Pindar’s time. στέφανος θαλλοῦ is a crown of leaves, θαλλός not being 
specific. 

2Pind. Isth. vii. 147-50. 8Schol. Pind. Ol. vii. 152. 

4Pind. Isth. iii. 117, with the scholium. 


5Schol. Plato Parmen. 127 A and other late authorities cited by Michaelis Der 
Parthenon, p. 318. 


6Stat. Silv. v. 3. 226: Obalcidicae Oerealia dona coronae; Inschriften von 
Olympia 56. 15-17: τιμαὶ [δὲ κ]ατὰ [τ]ὴν Καίσαρος ἐπ[ιταγὴν τοῖς μὲν παισὶν... .. 
ινος στέφανος, τοῖς δὲ ἀνδρ]άσι σταχύινος. In IG XIV. 748 we havé ona stone at Naples 
a sculptured representation of a crown won by a boy at these games. If we could 
trust the statement of Franz (CIG 5805) that this crown is of laurel, we should be 
able to supply the lacuna in the inscription of Olympia. The Neapolitan stone ought 
to be re-examined with reference to this point. 


7Juv. vi. 387 and other passages quoted by Wissowa in Pauly-Wissowa, 8. v. 
‘*Capitolia.”” Inasmuch as these passages refer to the contest in poetry, it is interest- 
ing to be assured by an inscription (Inschriften von Magnesia 181. 5, 6) that the 
athletic prize at these games was the same. 


8Stat. Silv. iii. δ. 28, 29; iv. 2. 65-67; v. 3. 227-31; Mart. ix. 23.1-4. The prize is 
clearly shown by several of these passages to have been a crown, and not a mere 
branch, as it is called by P. J. Meier in Pauly-Wissowa I, p. 867. 


9On this subject Dr. G. B. Hussey’s careful paper on ‘Greek Sculptured Crowns 
and Crown Inacriptions,’’ Am. Journal of Archaeology, 1890, pp. 69 ff. (= Papers of 
the Am. School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. V, pp. 1365 ff.) has been of great 
assistance. 


270 F. B. TaRgBELL 


tured crowns were intended to conform in appearance to the 
actual crowns; but unfortunately the workmanship is often so 
careless that a determination of the kind of leaves intended is 
impossible. The printed comments in most cases do not attempt 
this. Probably an examination of the originals would often 
enable one to decide at least whether palm leaflets were intended 
or not; but I am obliged to restrict myself to cases where an 
apparently trustworthy report, pictorial or verbal, exists. The 
number of monuments thus available’ is not large, but they yield 
information in regard to the crowns given at something like 
thirty-five festivals, besides those known from the literary sources 
quoted above. In regard to all of these it is probably safe to 
say that the crowns were not of palm.’ 

A few additional facts of the same sort may be gleaned from 
coins of the Roman imperial period, on which are represented 
crowns with names of festivals.’ Of the five cases that I have 
noted none looks at all as if made of palm leaflets, unless it be 
the crown of the Actian games shown on several coins of Nicop- 
olis and called by Professor Percy Gardner in the British 
Museum Catalogue a crown of reeds. This Actian crown was 
above judged not to be of palm on the evidence of JG XIV. 739. 

Finally we may bring in the rare cases of statues of athletes 


1CIA II. 1217 (of the Delian crown on which Dr. B. H. Hill has kindly sent me a 
rubbing), 1319 (=’Egmpepls 'Apx., 1841, No. 915), 1367 (Ξ- Εφημερὶς ’ Apx. 1862, Pl. 84); 
IG XIV. 738 (=Annali dell’ Inst., 1865, p. 97), 739 (=Annali dell’ Inst., 1865, Pl. G) ; 
IG 1X. 138; Inschriften von Olympia 188. This list is doubtless incomplete. It 
includes some crowns bestowed for literary and musical victories, but the distinction 
between these and gymnastic victories is irrelevant for the present purpose. 


2In most of these cases it is not prudent to be more specific. But the crown given 
at the Athenian Lenaea was certainly of ivy (CJA II. 1367), as would be expected ; 
and on the evidence of Pittakia’ illustration (ἘΦ. ’Apx., No. 915), coupled with ante- 
cedent probability, it is pretty safe to say that the crown given at the Dodonaean 
Naia was of oak, though Pittakis calls it vine. The indeterminate Delian crown on 
CIA 11. 1217 is at least not inconsistent with the theory that the crown at the Delia 
was of laurel—a theory altogether likely in view of the fact that the complimentary 
.crown conferred by the Delians was regularly of laurel (δάφνης στέφανος ὁ ἱερός or 
ὁ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ: Bull. de corr. hell., 1904, pp. 122 ff. and 271 ff., ete.). Of. the similar 
formulas at Delphi (Dittenberger Sylloge? 215. 8; 291. 12; 662. 8), where the crown of 
victory was also of laurel. 

8Cohen Médailles impériales I, Néron, Nos. 46 ff.; Brit. Mus. Catalogue of Coins, 
Thessaly to Aetolia, Pl. XIX. 8; Lydia, Pl. XX. 13 and p. 202; Galatia, etc., Pls. 
XXXIV. 12, and XXXV. 7. 


THe Paum oF VICTORY 271 


wearing crowns, although the victories thus commemorated can- 
not now be connected with particular festivals. I have in mind 
the Rampin head,' which has a crown of oak leaves, the bronze 
head from Beneventum® and a marble head in Dresden,’ both 
with crowns of olive, and the boxer from Sorrento,’ whose crown 
is at any rate not of palm. 

Thus from one source and another we get evidence that at 
approximately fifty festivals, including the four of traditionally 
highest importance, the crowns of victory were not made of palm, 
and for no festival do we get evidence that the crown was of 
palm. Fifty, to be sure, do not constitute a majority of the 
multitudinous festivals which Pausanias may have had in mind. 
But it is scarcely possible that the unknown were very different 
from the known. Indeed it would not be very rash to say that 
the palm, almost never used for crowns of any kind,’ was seldom 
or never used for crowns of victory. 

Now if the statement conveyed in the words οἱ δὲ ἀγῶνες φοί- 
νικος ἔχουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ στέφανον is not true, it is not likely that 
Pausanias could have believed it true. Is it not then reasonable 
to delete these words as an interpolation into the text? The im- 
provement secured thereby to the logic of the passage may be 
allowed to count for something in recommending the change. 
But if we are willing to go so far, we shall be strongly tempted 
to go a step farther. στεφανοῦν, near the end of the quotation 
given above (p. 268), implies a version of the legend inconsistent 
with that of Plutarch, who thinks of Theseus as bestowing a palm 
branch in token of victory.° Such a difference of version is not 
in itself sufficient to justify an attack upon the text; but here the 
word στεφανοῦν, only half appropriate to the traditional text, is 
quite inappropriate to the text as emended. I suggest, therefore, 


1Reinach Recueil de tétes antiques, Pla. III, IV. 

3 Fondation Piot, Monuments et mémoires I, Pls. X, XI. 
8Jahrb. ἃ. Inst., Anzeiger, 1894, p. 172. | 
‘Kalkmann Proportionen des Gesichts, Pl. III. 


5’ Wreaths of palm were worn by the leaders of choruses at the Spartan Gymno- 
paedia (Athenaeus 678b). I know of no other case. 


6 Theseus 21.3: καὶ τοῖς νικῶσι τότε πρῶτον ὑπ᾽ éxelvov φοίνικα δοθῆναι. Cf. 
Quaest. Conviv. viii. 4. 3. 


272 F. B. ΤΆΒΒΕΙΙ, 


that what Pausanias wrote was some such word as κοσμῆσαι, and 
that στεφανοῦν, a mistaken gloss, crept into the text to the dis- 
lodgment of the genuine word. 

My theory of the matter is that the change from κοσμῆσαι( ?) 
to στεφανοῦν was the starting-point of the corruption of the text, 
and that this blunder led subsequently to the interpolation of the 
sentence, of δὲ ἀγῶνες φοίνικος ὄχουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ στέφανον. 

If these suggestions do not carry conviction, then we must 
take the view that Pausanias not only wrote a muddled passage, 
but also on an important point misrepresented the facts. In any 
case the statement that the palm was commonly used for crowns 
of victory ought to disappear from our books of reference. 


THE MSS OF THE HISTORIA AUGUSTA 
By Susan H. Βαισου 


A fresh illustration of the disadvantage under which text-criti- 
cism of the so-called Scriptores Historiae Augustae labors in not 
having as a basis an accurate report of the Palatine MS, now that 
it is recognized as the only early source for the text, appears in a 
recent article by Rohl in Rh. Mus. LXII (1907), p. 1, in a note 
on Commodus 14. 1. Peter reports there the reading: cum fruges 
et non deessent in PB, and suggests fortasse: tum non, though in 
the text he merely omits et. Baehrens proposed etiam as an emenda- 
tion for et, and Petschenig ingeniously changed et non deessent 
to emendae essent. Rohl now offers fruges et oleum nond. In 
point of fact the troublesome ef does not occur at all in P, but 
only in B, which alone is not sufficient authority. This is only 
one of many false reports by Peter (Jordan-Eyssenhardt have 
here the correct report), which have given rise to similar waste of 
time and ingenuity on the part of scholars in emending readings 
which do not exist. A number of other examples might be cited, 
e.g., Avid. Cass. 14. 3: P and B read: dum clemens dici cupit, 
and in 14. 5, de clementes (clementiis P’). In his apparatus 
Peter’s report: ‘“‘clementes PB,”’ etc., including the reading of M, 
applies to 14. 5, and the conjectures of Salmasius and Petschenig, 
which he quotes, apply to 14. 3; but Peter, having failed to prefix 
the numbers of the lines, confuses the two reports, as does also 
Petschenig, who proceeds to emend the supposedly unreadable 
place in 14. 3 to clementem se dici cupit. This Peter then adopts 
in his text; whereas, emendation was unnecessary for 14. 3, and 
quite obvious and easy in 14. 5. 

Again, Heliog. 14. 8, Peter reads in the text et before sacra- 
᾿ς menti—absence of italics implies its presence in PB. Vielhaber, 
feeling that a word must have fallen out, suggests three possible 
ways of filling the gap. In reality ef occurs in neither MS. 
Also, Opil. Macr. 14. 3, both Peter and Jordan-Eyssenhardt report 
(CuassicaL PHILoOLoey III, July, 1908) 273 


274 Susan H. Ba.Lou 


ex translati in PB (and Peter adds ex Graeco in M). Peiper 
emends ex to exinde, adding that ex Graeco does not fit the sense, 
and ‘‘glicklicher Weise entbehren die HSS dieses Zusatzes.” 
Unfortunately, however, Graeco does occur after ex in both P and 
B. In still another case, in Ant. Pius 5.1, P’s cum aduixit // is 
emended by Vielhaber to quoad vixit, which already exists in P 
in a correction by P*, which was not reported by Peter. 

To prevent such misapprehensions as these, the need seems 
obvious of a revised critical apparatus, such as may serve as an 
accurate basis for future text-criticism. Lessing’s newly completed 
Lexicon Scriptorum Historiae Augustae will indeed be of much 
service in avoiding errors of this kind, since Lessing made use 
of Dessau’s new collation of P. For example, he has the correct 
reading at Avid. Cass. 14. 3. His work, however, does not 
attempt to be exhaustive in giving examples, but is rather illus- 
trative, and in only this one of the above-cited cases would the new 
lexicon have been of service in correcting the error. And even 
thongh, as pointed out by Mommsen (Hermes XXV. 228 ff.), the 
text itself will not be greatly altered by a new report of P (it 
happens that in three of the above cases it would be), there should 
be at hand an exact report of the actual condition of P, together 
with all its corrections and additions, but simplified and cleared of 
all superfluous and confusing reports of B, except where they 
assist us in arriving at the original writing in the case of changes 
in P, or even where its correctors offer anything of value for the 
text. Furthermore, the matter of correctors’ hands in P is one of 
considerable importance and has never had adequate treatment. 
Their respective contributions to the history of the text emenda- 
tion of the Historia Augusta come to be of special interest and 
value if the most numerous and important can be identified as the 
work of the great pioneer humanist, Petrarch. 

This question also is touched on in the above-mentioned article 
of Rohl, when in a comment on Gord. iii. 27. 10, he states that the 
corrections in P, praetor: fotius urbis and tutori reip. (of which 
Peter ascribes the first to P’, the second by implication to P’), are 
‘“Conjecturen Petrarcas.”” Only the first of the corrections is 
really involved, for the second, being by erasure, offers no evidence 


THe MSS or THE Historia AUGUSTA . 275 


as to hand. This identification of Peter’s P* with Petrarch has 
indeed been made by De Nolhac (Pétrarque et [humanisme, 
Ist ed., p. 255), as far as concerns a large number of marginal 
notes and comments and in a very general way some correction of 
the text (“quelquesunes, lst ed.; plusieurs, 2d ed.—dés correc- 
tions du Palat. lui appartiennent aussi’’), but no details in illustra- 
tion of the latter are given by him and there is certainly no ground 
for believing that he intends this remark to apply so widely to 
Peter’s P* as Rohl attributes to him in a review of the first edition 
of De Nolhac’s book (Berl. Wochenschr., 1893, p. 52). He must 
have been quoting from memory when he represents him as saying, 
“dass er (Petrarch) es war, der die nétige Umstellung in den 
Scriptores Historiae Augustae angab, s. 255.” If De Nolhac 
had meant this he would hardly have referred tothe author of the 
marginal notes involved as ‘un lecteur du ΧΙ" sidcle” (1st ed., 
p. 254), and two lines farther on as, “cet anonyme.’’ Certainly 
Dessau (in Hermes XXIX. 402-5) does not understand De Nol- 
hac to have said that. My own belief in regard to the identifica- 
tion of Petrarch with this “anonyme” of the fourteenth century, 
and the extent to which he coincides with Peter’s P’, I hope soon 
to show in connection with a complete discussion of P’s correctors 
᾿ and their significance for the question of the value of the minor 
MSS. 

How complicated in general the matter of the correctors’ hands 
is in P and how difficult it is, without a full and exhaustive study 
of them throughout the whole extent of the codex, to assign def- 
initely their respective contributions to the true source, appears 
from a mere glance at the collation of the first twenty pages of 
the life of Alex. Sev., made for Mommeen by his correspondent in 
Rome and published in Hermes XXV. 282 ff. Within this short 
portion 17 changes in the body of the text are marked Pe, that 
is, of uncertain authorship. Of these 4 are concerned with era- 
sures, where there is no evidence as to hand (though that fact is 
stated in regard to one only). Of the rest, 7 are by P’ and 6 are 
by P*. The marginal note at 247. 1 (Peter’s ed. of 1886, Vol. I) 
is also by P’, as is perhaps to be inferred from the remark. Of 
the changes attributed to P’, 5 are by P’; of those attributed to 


276 Susan H. BaLLou 


P*, 1 is by P’*, and 1 is by P»; and 1 other assigned to P® belongs 
to P’. Besides these points in the identification of the corrector — 
for the sake of completeness—the following inaccuracies in the 
report should be corrected: 


248. 3: ciutaseuerat P*; ciui-aseuerat (i. 6. ctuilia seuerat; 
so B) P?; ciui-aseuerat (i. 6. ciuilia aseuerat, so about half of 
the minor MSS) P’; 26: tam P* gam(t is still legible under q) P». 

249. 24: cenuiut Ῥ' B; conuiuia P*. 

251. 25: contaminator PB»; contra(atra)minator ΒΝ. 


253. 21: luxurie P'B; luxuria P® (the only erasure is of 6 to 
make place for a). 


256.17: purpureae (purpuree B) colores P'B; purpurei/ 
(¢ in eras.) P*; coloris (by eras.) P®™. 

258. 10: rei p P'B; re/ p (by eras.) δα, 

259. 25: septiminus PB (sep in eras., but by the first hand, 
leaving a space of one letter before ‘— much blurred but legible). 

267.4: seruisngenuts P*; seruisingenuis B®; serut ingenurs 
Pe™ Be™ (eras. only in both cases, probably by P®B?). 


These corrections which I suggest serve for the most part 
merely to add weight to the evidence sought, namely that B is an 
early copy of P. But the bit of collation, while accurate enough 
to prove the point, is far from being so trustworthy as it would 
have been if made on the basis of a thorough acquaintance with 
the MS as a whole. 

Having devoted much time and labor to making a complete 
and, I trust, accurate collation of P and B, together with a more 
or less thorough examination of all of the minor MSS to which I 
could get access—including especially the very interesting and 
valuable copy which, as DeNolhac shows, was made for Petrarch, 
viz., Paris 5816, which was not examined by Peter and has never 
been fully reported—I hope in the near future to publish a full 
and accurate report of P, together with such information in regard 


THE MSS or THE HIsToria AUGUSTA 277 


to the minor MSS and their relation to P as shall settle several 
now open questions concerning their value for the text.’ 


THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


1In making this announcement I am of course not unaware that a collation of the 
two oldest MSS has already been made by the learned scholar of the Scriptores His- 
toriae Augustae, H. Dessau, partial results of which were published by him in Hermes 
XIX. 393 ff. But there being no immediate prospect of the appearance of the long- 
expected edition from his hand, I have felt at liberty to put out at least such a basis 
for a new critical apparatus as can be obtained from the MSS, and as, it seems to me, 
is imperatively and immediately needed. For to an inquiry on the part of my former 
teacher and present colleague, Professor F. F. Abbott, of The University of Chicago, 
by whom my study of this collection was first inspired, Dessau most generously 
responded in a letter of November 11, 1902, as follows: 

‘‘Ich habe allerdings im Winter 1892/3 die beiden Altesten Handschriften der 
Scriptores Historiae Augustae mit der Absicht verglichen, einmal eine Ausgabe dieser 
Schriftateller zu veranstalten. Ich bin aber im Folge vieler anderer Beech&aftigungen 
bis jetzt nicht dazu gekommen, und glaube auch nicht dass ich in den nAéchsten Jahren 
dazu kommen werde. Unter diesen Umstainden wire es durchaus unzuléssig, wenn 
ich gegen die Herausgabe der Scriptores durch irgend einen anderen Einspruch erheben 
wollte. Im Gegenthiel ich begrtisse Ihren Entschluss die Biographien der Kaiser 
Tacitus und Probus herauszugeben oder durch einen Ihrer Schiiler bearbeiten zu las- 
sen, mit Freuden, und bitte Sie, sich dabei nicht zu kimmern um das was ich hatte 
echreiben kénnen oder etwa noch schreiben werde, sondern nur um das was ich 
geschrieben habe.”’ 


THE TABULA VALERIA AND THE TABULA SESTIA 
By CHartes J. O’ConnoR 


There are two passages in Cicero in which he speaks of a certain 
tabula Valeria as if it were a definite object or spot in the Forum. 
In a third passage he speaks of a tabula Sestia in the same definite 
way. The nature and location of these two fabulae have been the 
subject of considerable discussion on the part of commentators 
and archaeologists. Platner, in Am. Jour. Phil. XIX (1898), 
p. 406, has discussed the current theories, but, it seems to me, has 
not solved the riddle. The most recent works on the topography 
of Rome give the traditional account. I wish to offer a new inter- 
pretation of the passages involved. 

While Cicero was an exile he wrote (Ad fam. 14. 2. 2) from 
Thessalonica under date of October 5, 58 B. o. to Terentia and his 
children, bewailing their wretched lot and his own lack of courage, 
and said: “Publius Valerius, most dutiful man, has written me 
—a thing which I read with many tears— how you were conducted 
from the house of Vesta to the fabula Valeria. Alas... . to 
think that you are thus harassed, thus humbled in tears and mourn- 
ing.” The Latin runs: 

Pisonem nostrum merito eiusamo plurimum. eum ut potui per litteras 
cohortatus sum gratiasque egi ut debui. in novis tribunis pl. intellego 
spem te habere. id erit firmum si Pompeii voluntas erit sed Crassum 
tamen metuo. a te quidem omnia fieri fortissime et amantissime video 
nec miror sed maereo casum eius modi ut tantis tuis miseriis meae mise- 
riae subleventur. nam ad me P. Valerius homo officiosus scripsit id quod 
ego maximo cum fletu legi quem ad modum a Vestae ad tabulam Valeriam 
ducta esses. 


In his speech against Vatinius (9. 21) Cicero addressed Vatinius 
with these words: “1 wish you to answer me whether, when you 
were leading Marcus Bibulus, the consul, . . . . to prison, and 
your colleagues (that is the tribunes) from the tabula Valeria 
were bidding you to let him go, you made a bridge in front of the 
Rostra by putting together tribunals, over which a consul of the 
[CLassICAL PHILOLOGY ITI, July, 1906] 278 


THe TaBuLA VALERIA AND THE ΤΆΒΟΙΑ SESTIA 279 


Roman people . . . . was led away not merely to prison, but to 
punishment and death”—et a tabula Valeria collegae tui mitti 
tuberent. 

There have been two explanations of the phrase éabula Valeria, 
and each of them has continued to find acceptance because a 
chance resemblance has led scholars to seek a connection which 
does not exist. One view is that the words mean the bank of Vale- 
rius, which is snggested by a passage in Cicero (Pro Quintio 6. 
25) where a tabula Sestia is mentioned. In this latter place the 
phrase is understood by some to mean a banker’s office. Platner, 
in the article cited, has shown that such a connection is illogical. 
I hope to show in the second part of this paper what the real rela- 
tion is. 

The advocates of the other view seek to identify the tabula 
Valeria with a painting of some sort upon the wall of the old 
senate house. This idea was put in circulation by the scholiast 
who commented on the In Vatinium passage, saying that this was 
the tabula wherein Valerius Maximus displayed before the people 
his exploits in Gaul. This was doubtless suggested by the passage 
in Pliny (N. H. 35 [7]. 22) where it is said that the esteem in 
which painting was held at Rome was increased by Manius Valerius 
Maximus Messala, who in 264 B. o. had a picture of the battle in 
which he overcame the Carthaginians and Hiero in Sicily placed 
upon the side of the Curia Hostilia. The scholiast made a slip in 
saying in Gallia for in Sicilia. There are various statements in 
the Latin writers which indicate that the tabula Valeria of the 
In Vatinium passage and the painting mentioned by Pliny were 
in the same part of the Forum, but that is all that can be said in 
favor of the second view. What name, if any, was applied to the 
picture, we do not know. It was as likely to get its name from the 
scene represented as from the man who set it up. Platner shows 
that the picture or a copy of it or at least the name might have 
existed in the time of Cicero, and to his argument it can be added 
that if this picture was a fabula picta in the strict sense of that 
phrase it could be readily taken down from one wall and set up 
on another. But its existence in the time of Cicero is immaterial 
in the present discussion, for I think that the fabula was a bronze 


280 CHARLES J. O’CoNNOR 


tablet or set of tablets on which was engraved a law or series of 
laws; that the station or tribunal of the tribunes was near this so 
that they could consult the law when transacting business; that 
the phrase was equivalent —in some cases at least—to the tribunal 
of the tribunes. Manutius, according to Tyrrell (Ad fam. 14. 2), 
thought that this designated a sort of tribune’s court, but he took 
the name as referring to the picture on the wall of the senate 
house. 

A study of our two passages will lead us by different roads to 
the same spot—the station of the tribunes. Our way will be 
easier to follow if we keep in mind one fact which is characteristic 
of Cicero’s writings and of his speeches especially. He is ever 
quick to point an argument, to embellish a period, by reference to 
the men and monuments of his own and past generations, especially 
when he is trying to prop up the crumbling institutions of the 
republic. He mentions by the names of their builders monuments 
which others refer to in general terms. We have an instance of 
this in the speech against Vatinius. The orator is speaking of the 
events of the year 59 Β. Ο., of the rioting which attended the pas- 
sage of the agrarian laws. Bibulus and Caesar were consuls that 
year. The former was one of the chief opponents of Pompey and 
Caesar. Vatinius was a tribune, an adherent of Pompey and 
Caesar, and was so agressive that those tribunes whose sympathies 
_ were with the optimates were helpless. The passage in question 
can be understood best when studied in connection with one from 
Dio Cassius (38. 6) and one from Appian (B. C. 2.11). From 
these we learn that, during the incident to which Cicero refers, 
Vatinius, a tribune, disregarding the protests of his colleagues laid 
violent hands on the consul and dragged him down from the Rostra 
and, when the other tribunes interfered, broke their fasces and 
even wounded some of these hitherto sacred magistrates. This 
unprecedented (according to Cicero) usurpation of power on the 
part of a tribune and this disregard of the sanctity of the tribune’s 
body Cicero is bringing home to Vatinius, and he emphasizes it 
by reference to the tabula Valeria, that is, the law proposed by a 
member of the Valerian gens and ever after guarded by men of 
that clan. 


THE TABULA VALERIA AND THE TABULA SESTIA 281 


Family pride often led one family or one gens to carry on some 
special kind of work for the public good through a number of 
generations. At times, for instance, it would be the construction 
and restoration of a public building, like the Basilica Aemilia, 
which was so well cared for by one family that it came to be called 
Aemilia monumenta. According to the history which was believed 
in Cicero’s time, although it may not be today, the Valerian gens 
had secured and guarded a series of enactments pertaining to the 
rights of the plebeians and to their tribunes, the best known, if 
not the most important, being that which imposed the death penalty 
for violence done to a tribune. Although this set of laws is gene- 
rally known as the Horatian, or Valerio-Horatian, law, it is more 
fitly called the Valerian. By referring to these venerable docu- 
ments, within the shadow of which the colleagues of Vatinius stood 
on that eventful day, Cicero added force to his charge that Vatinius 
had usurped authority, whereas there is no point whatever in 
referring to the picture on the wall of the senate house or to a 
banker’s office. 

As for the letter to Terentia and the conjecture that she was 
compelled by Clodius to go to a banker in order to transact some 
business or make some declaration in connection with her hus- 
band’s property, there seems to be very little to support such an 
idea. Business of this sort probably would have been transacted 
before a magistrate, not a banker, and moreover, Terentia could 
not have been forced to leave the protection of the Vestal Virgins. 
Publius Valerius is called homo officiosus perhaps because he has 
written to Cicero about the matter, but more probably because he 
conducted Terentia to the magistrate. If she had been compelled 
to go by Clodius, Cicero would never have used so mild a word as 
ducta esses. Then, too, it was not the mere fact that she went to 
the tribunal which disturbed Cicero but the manner of her going, 
as the phrase quem ad modum indicates. In going from the Atrium 
of Vesta to the tribunal she would have gone for some distance 
through the Forum at atime when there were many men there. The 
tribunal was probably out of doors so that Terentia would have 
been exposed the whole time to the insults of the ruffians who were 
in the service of Clodius. While it is true that in this letter (14. 


282 CHABLES J. O’ConNOB 


2. 8) Cicero writes about the recovery of his own property and 
begs his wife not to sell any of hers and again a few weeks later 
(Ad fam. 14.1.5) urges her to spare her property, in both letters 
this seems to be a matter entirely distinct from the transaction at 
the tabula Valeria. The purpose of Terentia’s visit, I take it, was 
to make some deposition or to observe some legal form which was 
necessary in securing the recall of Cicero. The mention of her 
humiliation comes in the midst of hopes and fears concerning the 
measures adopted by Cicero’s friends for his relief. He says: 
‘“‘Piso is very deserving of my love. I have encouraged him as 
well as I could through letters, I have thanked him as was fitting. 
I understand that you put your hope in the new tribunes. It will 
be all right if Pompey’s good will endures, but I fear Crassus. I 
see that you have done everything bravely and lovingly, and I do 
not wonder; yet I grieve that your lot is such that my wretched- 
ness is relieved by yours,” and then speaks of the visit to the 
tabula Valeria. It seems as if Terentia had told of her visit but 
not of the insults which she suffered during it. 

In the letters of this period the exile harps upon the same sub- 
ject, the attempts of the tribunes who were favorable to him to 
bring about his recall and the opposition of the Clodian faction. 
In the year 59, between Oct. 25 and Dec. 10, he writes to Quintus 
expressing confidence in the outcome of the struggle and the belief 
that the tribunes elect are his friends (Ad Ὁ. fr. 1. 2.16). On 
July 17, 58 he writes to Atticus that it is vain to depend on the 
election if Clodius is a tribune and Metellus, the consul elect, is 
hostile (Ad Aét. 3. 12). Aug. 5 he writes to Atticus that his 
hope is in the tribunes elect (Ad Αἰ. 3. 13). In another letter 
(Ad Q. fr. 1. 4) he names several tribunes whom he considers 
friendly. Aug. 17, 58 he asks Atticus how his recall can be brought 
about through the people unless all of the tribunes agree to it (Ad 
Att. 3.15.6). To Terentia, Nov. 25, he says that they need not 
despair if all the tribunes are on his side and if Lentulus, Pompey, 
and Caesar are as zealous as they seem (Ad fam. 14.1). Nov. 
29 he criticizes a bill introduced by the tribunes (Ad Αἰ. 3. 28). 
In another letter to Atticus (3. 24) written Dec. 10 he is anxious, 
fearing that the tribunes have been alienated. Jan. 1, 57 a bill 


THr ΤΆΒΟΙΑ VALERIA AND THE TABULA SESTIA 288 


for his recall was introduced in the senate but was vetoed by a 
tribune. Later in the same year one of the tribunes who was 
friendly to him was attacked and nearly killed by members of the 
Clodian faction while performing his duty within the precincts of 
the Temple of Castor. Here again, if the evidence to be found 
in the history of Cicero’s exile points in any direction, it points to 
the tribunal of the tribunes, where Terentia observed the formali- 
ties necessary to secure her husband’s return. Here also the 
Valerian tablet is a symbol, and at the same time the visible source, 
of the tribunician power, which is abused by the enemies of the 
old order of things. Perhaps in speaking of it by this name Ci- 
cero has in mind the fact that it was a Valerius who befriended 
Terentia. 

The exact location of this tablet cannot be determined. It is 
possible that such tablets were fastened to the movable tribunals 
of wood, but it is probable that they were generally attached to 
permanent structures near the places where the magistrates who 
had to consult them were accustomed to preside. The more im- 
portant tribunals of the time of Cicero were probably found on 
the higher ground at the west end of the Forum and Comitium. 
The Rostra, I think, was often used as a tribunal and its outer 
surface, perhaps, was utilized for the posting of laws and decrees. 
It may be that many of the numerous tablets which must have 
been set up in this region were fastened to the foundation walls 
of the Temple of Saturn, the Tabularium, the Temple of Concord, 
the Carcer, and to the bases of the honorary columns and statues 
which abounded here. I am inclined to believe that this tablet 
was in the immediate neighborhood of the early Rostra, which was 
a few meters north of the Arch of Septimius Severus and a short 
distance in front of the Carcer. 

The tabula Sestia is mentioned in the defense of Publius Quin- 
tius (Pro Quintio 6. 25) as the place where Quintius and Naevius 
were to meet in order to fulfil the terms of a vadimonium. Nae- 
vius by various legal devices had avoided settlement of the affairs 
of the partnership formed between himself and the deceased father 
of Quintius, refusing even to make a vadimonium. Nevertheless 
learning on a certain day that Quintius was far enough along on a 


284 CHARLES J. O’CONNOR 


journey to Gaul he summoned his friends to meet him next morn- 
ing at the tabula Sestia: tum Naevius pueros circum amicos 
dimittit ipse suos necessarios ab atriis Liciniis et a faucibus 
macelli corrogat ut ad tabulam Sestiam sibi adsint hora secunda 
postridie. When they met there he pretended that he was keeping 
the terms of the vadimonium and made declaration that he was 
present and that Quintius was not. The witnesses signed the 
declaration and the record was sealed. Naevius then applied to 
the praetor for an order of proscription of the property involved, 
which was granted. There is nothing in the context to indicate 
that this tabula Sestia was a banker’s counter or office. The 
phrase evidently was used to designate a tribunal where public 
records, tabulae maximae, were accessible, records which guided 
the praetor in issuing his order. I take this tablet to be one which 
was inscribed with some law and set up near the court of a magi- 
strate, some of whose official acts were connected with the law. 
Now the Licinian laws are more appropriately called Sestian. 
The first plebeian consul elected in accordance with their terms was 
not Licinius but his colleague in the legislation, Lucius Sextius. 
Among the provisions of these laws were some relating to the use 
of public land for stockraising, to the employment of slaves in the 
country, and to the relief of debtors. The last two points were 
involved in the dispute between Naevius and Quintius and it is 
probable that the first was also, since the business of the partner- 
ship was the raising of sheep and cattle in Gaul, so that this case 
may have been within the scope of the Licinian, or Sestian, laws. It 
is possible, too, that, even if this particular case had nothing to do 
with them, the magistrate who held court near them had cognizance 
of it. I believe that the tabula Sestia was a tablet inscribed with 
the Licinian laws. It was probably in the region already men- 
tioned as abounding in such tablets. It ought to be added that 
tablets of this sort were doubtless moved from place to place when 
there was need of it, as, for instance, when a tribunal was moved. 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 


A NEW MANUSCRIPT OF CICERO’S DE SENECTUTE 


By GrorcEe Reeves ΤΉΒΟΟΡ 


Codex C is a MS in the library of Cornell University. Its 
catalogue number is MSS B3. It measures 193/10 by 143/10 cm., 
is bound in calf with gold tooling, and bears upon the. back the 
title: M. T. CIC./PARADOX./DE SENECT./DE AMICIT./ 
It contains the coat-of-arms and motto of ‘“‘Le comte Ὁ. Boutour- 
lin,” undoubtedly the well-known Russian historian, bibliophile, 
and librarian, Dimitri Boutourlin (17. .-1850), long director of 
the Imperial Library at Petersburg, whose fine collection of books 
and manuscripts was sold at auction in Paris in 1839-41. The 
following flyleaf note, ‘““Vente Monmerqu6é/13 fr 50c/le 5 Juin 
1851,” shows that the MS had come into the possession of the 
eminent French antiquary and book-collector, Louis Jean Nicolas 
Monmergqué (1780-1860). The MS seems next to have become 
the property of the noted Parisian publisher, Ambrose Firmin 
Didot (1790-1876), as is evident from his bookmark. He doubt- 
less purchased it at the Monmerqué sale in 1851, and probably 
owned it until his death in 1876. It was purchased in Paris, in 
1886, by Professor G. L. Burr, for the President White Historical 
Library, now a part of the library of Cornell. 

The MS is a palimpsest of which the under-writing has been 
removed by abrasion. This under-writing, which is slightly 
visible in many places, appears to be a cursive hand of probably 
the thirteenth century. It is undecipherable though almost legible 
in many places: e. g., on folios 88 a, 91 ὃ, 107 ὃ, 108 a, ete. 
The leaves are in many cases rubbed full of holes in an effort to 
remove the original writing. The writing itself is on vellum of a 
yellowish-white color, marred by a few worm-holes. The leaves 
are of moderate thickness, except several that have been scraped 
thin by the abrasion. 

The MS consists of quaternions with catchword, signatures at 
the bottom of the page. These catchwords are, as usual, the first 
(CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY III, July, 1908) 985 


286 GroRGE REEves THROOP 


words of the text at the top of the opposite page. It contains 123 
leaves, of which 25-26 and 74-75 are blanks, and are inserted by 
the binder between the essays. There are also four blank leaves 
at the front and the same number at the end of the MS. Τί is of 
one column, eighteen lines to a page, twenty-four to thirty letters 
to a line, with large margins. Ruled lines are drawn with a sharp 
point, apparently of lead. 

The MS contains: (1) PARADOXA. Begins on fol. 1 a: 
Animadvorti Brute/sepe Catonem. Ends on fol. 246: inopes et 
pauperes exti/mandi sunt. Amen. (2) CATO MAIOR. Begins 
on fol. 27a: O TITE si quid ego adiuto/curamve. Ends on fol. 
73 ὃ: reexperti pro/bare possitis. Amen: /Marci Tulli Cicero- 
nis/ad Acticum de Senectute/LIiber Explicit. Amen:/DEO 
GRATIAS. (3) LAELIUS. Begins on fol. 76a: Quintus 
Mucius au/gur Scevola multa narrare. Ends on fol. 123 b: 
nichil amieitia pre/stabilius esse putetis. Amen. 

The initial letter in each essay is large (14 by 14 inches), is 
colored in blue and red, and highly ornamented. This, however, 
is the only trace of the rubricator in the De senectute; in the 
latter, also, a different shade of blue and red was used from that 
employed in the Paradoxa and De amicitia. The latter two 
essays are rubricated throughout—interlocutors, proper names, ~ 
chapter headings, etc. Inthe De senectute the names of the 
interlocutors are sometimes written in the text by the first hand; 
oftener a blank space is left, presumably for their insertion by 
the rubricator. This space is always supplied with the name 
written in very small script. 

The MS has many glosses and variant readings by a later 
hand. Inthe same hand as the glosses are the following captions 
at the beginning of the three essays, respectively: De paradossis, 
De senectute, De amicitia. The punctuation is confined to two 
signs. One of these is the sign of interrogation; the other is the 
simple point, which is freely used by the writer for comma, semi- 
colon, and period. The hand of the glosses has divided the 
sentences throughout by very fine upright lines which often can 
scarcely be discerned. 

At the end of the Paradoxa, on fol. 24 ὃ, is the following sub- 


A Nsw MANUSORIPT OF ΟἸΟΘΕΒΟΒ Dr ΘΈΝΕΟΤΟΤΕ 287 


scription: MCCCCIIIIo in dictione die XXIa mensis Junu 
expletus est hora XXa. Also at the end of the De senectute, on 
fol. 18; MCCCCIIIIo die (X Xa) mensis Aprilis hora XVIII 
felaciter a me francischo expletus est liber iste. There is no sub- 
scription at the end of the De amicitia. On the third paper 
flyleaf at the end of the book, a neat modern hand has written 
(1) Le traité De Senectute a été écrit et terminé par Franciscus 
en 1404 le 20 Avril ἃ la 18e heure. (2) Le méme Franciscus a 
écrit et terminé le trait6é De Paradoxis le 21 Juin de la méme 
année ἃ la 20e heure. (3) Le traité De Amicitia est de la méme 
main. It is, of course, clear enough that this note has no worth 
as evidence, and that the subscriptions of the glossator are the 
source of its information. The statement in regard to the De 
amicitia was of course only surmised from the similarity of the 
writing of the De amicitia to that of the other essays. The 
French note was probably written by Boutourlin, as the flyleaf 
may be older than the present binding, which is, I suppose, that 
of Firmin Didot. 

The Latin subscriptions are in the same hand and ink as the 
readings of the second hand, the glosses, and the captions men- 
tioned above. This ink is of a very pale brown, even when 
heavily applied, as often occurs. It never approaches the deep 
black color of the ink in which the text is written,except on a few 
leaves, where by reason of age the writing has partly faded away. 
That this lighter shade is not due to the smaller size of the writ- 
ing is shown by the captions and by a line inserted in the text by 
a later hand at the bottom of fol. 81 ὃ: dulcedine morum et 
affabilitate. The writing, though heavier perhaps than that of 
the text, retains here its distinctive light-brown shade. 

The writing of the text itself is extremely regular and legible, 
being apparently that of the Italian book-hand then prevalent. 
It shows none of the fifteenth-century degeneration which is so 
noticeable in the glosses and readings of the second hand. 
Abbreviations, which in that century are so plentiful and so diff- 
cult of decipherment, are here confined to a few words, and are 
exceedingly easy to understand. The letters are not compressed 
laterally, as is common in the latter part of the fourteenth and in 


288 GEORGE REEVES THROOP 


the fifteenth century. The regularity of the writing is certainly 
much beyond that usually found in MSS of that date. Nor does 
it partake in the least of the Renaissance style prevalent in the 
fifteenth century; the letters are too angular, and do not have the 
graceful rounded ends and slender upward strokes or tails. 

Some specific points may be cited as illustrating the above 
statements. In the fourteenth century the letter a, made with the 
upper loop open in the the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, 
closes the top of the loop. This letter is found in our MS, appar- 
ently in different stages of development; the letter even occurs 
with the upper loop entirely open. The usual form is a letter 
made with the upper loop partly closed; then an extra stroke, very 
faint, and often not to be discerned except by close examination, 
is added to the lower part of the upper loop. This latter stroke 
usually just fails to touch the lower part of the letter. This 
change in the form of the letter a, which took place in the four- 
teenth century, seems therefore to be felt by the scribe as then 
going on. 

In the glosses, etc., the letter ¢ is made with the horizontal 
stroke at about the middle of the letter. This was the common 
style in 1404, the date of the glosses. In the twelfth and thir- 
teenth centuries, this letter was made with the horizontal stroke at 
the top of the perpendicular; then, about the beginning of the 
fourteenth century, the perpendicular stroke was slightly lowered. 
This change continued, until, in the fifteenth century, the letter 
was made with the horizontal stroke at about the center of the 
perpendicular, just as in the case of the glosses mentioned above. 
This letter is found in our MS with the cross-stroke ranging from 
the very top to a point upon the perpendicular distant perhaps 
one-fourth of its own length from the top. 

The accenting of the letter 1 commenced in the twelfth century, 
and was in large measure replaced by dots in the fifteenth and 
even partly in the fourteenth century. No dots are found in our 
MS. Yet the letter 7 is accented when near ἢ, m, τέ, 1, and some- 
times in other places, but the accent is also at times omitted even 
when 7 is near the letters mentioned. 

Simple e is written for ae and oe, this had commenced as early 


A New Manovsogipr oF Cicero’s Dz Senecrurz 289 


as the sixth century. The cedilla occurs once, however; ¢fernus. 
This is rarely found in fifteenth-century MSS. 

From these facts there seems to be no doubt that at least the 
scribe of the text and the scribe of the glosses were different per- 
sons. They seem also to warrant us in placing the date of the 
text at least fifty years, if not more, prior to the date given in the 
subscriptions. The omission of the word liber in the subscription 
to the Paradoxa might bear upon this. The use of the iste in the 
De senectute subscription instead of the usual hic may or may not 
be significant. The omission of a subscription to the De amicitia 
is also noteworthy. It would not be unnatural for a scribe to 
attach his name to a MS over which he had worked, if that MS 
were not already provided with a subscription. 

While the evidence undoubtedly points to the conclusion that 
the MS was written as early as 1300-1350, yet owing to the fact 
that no parallel instances of such postdating of manuscripts can 
be cited, a more conservative criticism would probably hold to the 
date given in the text. However, the value of the MS is not 
materially affected, whether its date be 1300 or 1400. 

The De senectute may be older than the other essays contained 
in our MS, as in it the ink seems to have worn off or faded away 
to a greater extent than in the Paradoxa and De amicitia. This, 
however, might be fully explained by its having been more read. 
The fact that the De senectute is not rubricated and that the initial 
letter is in different colors from those used in the other essays 
seems to indicate that it was written at a different time. But, as 
no further evidence can be adduced on this subject, the similarity 
of writing and of abbreviations in the three essays makes it rea- 
sonably certain that they are all by the same hand. Even if this 
is true, it by no means follows that the treatises were originally 
thus bound together. 

I shall denote the MS by C, the first hand by σ', the second 
hand by Οὐ. References by page and line are to C. F. W. 
Maller’s edition of Cicero, Leipzig, 1879 (Editio stereotypa, 
1898). His text is to be accepted without reserve for all readings 
which are not noted. Italics in the collation denote words deleted 
by the scribe but still readable. 


290 Georce Reeves ΤΉΒΟΟΡ 


The second hand, though later, as shown above, is of almost 
equal value with the first. It furnishes over three hundred vari- 
ants, some of which preserve the correct reading against corrup- 
tions in the text, many furnish important variants found in other 
MSS, and many are found nowhere else. The same hand has 
also written many glosses, few of which, however, are of any 
importance. Yet in a few instances a gloss preserves the true 
reading against a corruption or omission in the text; 6. g., p. 155. 
28 enim; 159. 10 esset; 143. 24 sunt. From the variety of 
readings quoted by the second hand, it cannot be doubted that 
several MSS were used in correcting the text. The second hand 
quotes in several places two variants for one passage of the text; 
e. g., p. 182. 8 Ο' adventantis, Οὐ coadventantis and advenientis; 
155. 16 C' mortis casus habet, Οὐ casus mortis habet, or casus 
habet mortis; etc. Variants are also sometimes added by the 
first hand; as, p. 134. 27 nobilis; 136. 18 panathethicus. 

The orthography, if not exact, is at least consistent. The 
scribe seems to have followed a regular spelling in the case of 
many words which usually vary in the MSS. Thus, always: 
quorsum, deinde, di, nichil, michi, unquam, tanquam, quotidte, 
quascunque, etc., quendam, etc., quicquam, littera, quatuor, rep- 
perio, autoritas, directus, valitudo, intelligo, etc., descriptio, 
vendicare, monimenta, lacrimis, libido, maximus (and always 
-imus in superlative endings), phylosophya, etc., -endum always 
for -wndum in gerunds and gerundives, adolescens, etc., 1ocundus, 
conditione, spetie, spacio, ociosam, admistum, hi and his for τὲ 
and 118, but the forms δὲ and eis are often employed; the assimi- 
lation of prepositions in compound words and like changes are 
regular, but exceptions occur, as: affatur, afferre, appeti, etc., 
colligo, comparare, etc., expectatis, extructis, etc., illustrium, 
slludi, immissio, imbecillus, etc., opprimere, succumbebat. 

Praenomina are regularly written out, as: Gaius for C., 
Gneus for Cn., Lucius for L., Marcus for M. and M"'., Publius 
for P., Sextus for Sex., Spurius for Sp., Titus for T. and T1., 
Quintus for Q., and twice the initial alone is written and blanks 
are left for the insertion of the remainder: Ρ - - - Crassus: 
T - - - Ponti. 


A New Manuvusoript or Cicero’s De Senecrure 291 


Genitives from proper names in -1us of the second declension 
regularly have -ἴ, as: Publit Licinit Crassi, Publi Dect. 

Proper names are often much confused or wrongly spelled, as 
in most MSS of the De senectute. We find on p. 136. 17 Socratis 
(Isocratis); 152. 21 Senocrates (Socrates); 146. 13 Flaminei 
(Flaminini); 146. 29 and 146. 35 Coruncanum; but 137. 16 and 
141.11 Coruncani; Affricanus and Affricaniin 141. 27 and 143. 27; 
but rightly in 160. 16, 17; Fabritit in 137. 16; also in 146. 24, 34: 
Sannite in 145. 37, and always. We also find Lisander in 152. 28, 
but Lysander elsewhere; Olimpia in 136. 30 and 142. 36; Thermo- 
philas in 142. 22; Symonidem in 139. 24; etc. 

Abbreviations are common, but neither varied nor difficult to 
understand. They are most numerous in case of the forms of the 
relative pronoun, of the enclitic -que, and of -n and -m in con- 
nection with the different vowels. Most of the abbreviations which 
occur are found many times and are consequently easy to interpret. 

It is unfortunate that the MS, while being comparatively free 
from interpolation and especially free from omissions, abounds in 
transpositions. These are probably traceable, to some extent, to 
the scribe himself, as few are to be found in any other MS. They 
seem for the most part to represent an endeavor to arrive at a 
simpler Latin order; as, p. 139. 23 liberatus est; 142. 1 puer 
memini; 149. 21 maior esse potest; and in many places. 

Interpolations are few in number and are mostly confined to 
supplying a logical word where it seemed to be omitted from the 
text. Most of these interpolations also have authority in other 
MSS and doubtless arose simultaneously in many, from attempts 
to improve or explain the text; 6. g., p. 135. 17 Hnnius ait; 135. 27 
toga fuit; 186. 5 littere erant in eo; 137. 5 avocet senes; etc. 
One of greater length occurs after requirere on Ὁ. 143. δ: nam 
cursus etatum nunquam retorquebitur. On p. 135. 4, after comi- 
tate, a later hand has added at the bottom of the page in a script 
which imitates the text: dulcedine morum et affabilitate. On 
p. 131. 3, is found the old interpolation: ef qua deprimeris. 

Omissions are extremely rare. The only one worthy of note 
occurs on p. 140. 16-17, where alter: . . . . odiosum is omitted 
as a result of the preceding odiosum. 


292 GEORGE REEVES THROOP 


C' or C’ often furnishes a good and frequently a correct text 
in the case of readings supported by no or by slight MS authority. 
Most of the readings which I here cite are commonly adopted by 
editors. A few are supported by one or more of the better MSS. 

E. g.; p. 185. 9 C? cumque eo; 135. 20 C' magisque magisque (coni. 
Muretus); 135. 19 enim] C? hic ; 186. 7 ita cupide fruebar tunc ; 136. 18 et; 
136, 29 sicut; 186. 82 (3 anno enim vigesimo, 136. 35 ΟἹ consulibus ; 
136. 37 C? suast ; 137. 27 C? decimo septimo anno; 141. 28 C? an ne has; 
142. 18 possem ; 142. 37 bovem unum utrum igitur ; 148. 18 in senectute ; 
143. 21 quae ; 144. 19-20 illa domo mos patrius et disc. ; 144. 85 C? magno 
opere ; 145. 29 posset ; 146. 6 quorsum (also on p. 136. 9); 146. 16 C? exora- 
tus ; 148. 25 tamen ; 149. 4 pseudolo ; 149. 12 C? suade medullam ; 149. 82 
deinde (also on p. 150. 20); 149. 35 erecta ; 151.31 quam ; 153. 6 C' studio 
teneamur ; 154.25 C' morum ; 155.13 ΟἹ est tam; 155. 22 quid (quod 3) est 
istud (coni. Wesenberg); 165. 37 ΟἹ viait ; 156.7 cuique; 156. 10 C' sapi- 
enti; 158.3 C! saepe profectas ; 158.8 Οἱ rerum; 158.16 C' equidem non 
enim; 159. 2 Apollinis oraculo; 159. 31 tum ; 159. 27 Οἱ diutius; 160. 2 
discedit; 160. 25 multo melius (restored by Bennett from Erfurtensis); 
161. 8 C! habeat. 

A study of these readings will show conclusively that C is 
descended from an excellent source, and one free from many cor- 
ruptions found even in the oldest MSS. A number of its corrup- 
tions, as I said above, seem to be due to its own scribe, though a 
few are manifestly of an older date; as, p. 181. 2 versatur pectore; 
184. 27 non nobilis; 142. 15 sex Nestoris. 

On p. 134. 27, C has non nobilis, the non being in rasura. On 
the margin, by C’ is ignobilis alias non nobilis; the non in this 
case being superscribed by C*. The MS doubtless read originally 
ignobilis, with a variant nobilis by the same hand. The reading 
nobilis is adopted by early editors, as, P. Baldvinus, Manutius, 
Graevius, and others; it is said to be taken ex antiquis codd.; 
but none of the MSS now used for the text of the De senectute 
seems to have this variant. nobilis was added, I think, by a scribe 
who wished a word after Seriphius, in order to make the sentence 
correspond to Atheniensis clarus in the following line. nobilis 
was then misunderstood as going with Seriphius, and was conse- 
quently changed to ignobilis in most of the MSS. Or, what is 
less likely, nobilis may be the original reading, which, after being 
changed to zgnobilis in the MSS, was entirely omitted from the 


A New Manvusorgipt or Cicero’s Dz ΘΈΝΕΟΤΟΤΕ 293 


text of a few as being evidently a gloss on Seriphius. nobilis, 
however, may have arisen from an attempt to improve an earlier 
ignobilis. 

On p. 136. 37, C' reads swasissem, Οὐ suasi. This latter read- 
ing, so generally adopted from Forchhammer’s conjecture, is pre- 
served in noother MS. The word is superscribed above suasissem 
by C’ and is itself quite legible; but the sign alias, used for 
denoting readings of C’, is here indistinct and might perhaps be 
taken for an abbreviation of vel, a sign which is also used by the 
glossator. I have found infrequently in other places readings of 
Ο" quoted under the sign for vel. 

On p. 155. 24, only P’ A’ H’ have the correct reading tu in; 
all others having the easy corruption tum. C’ also preserves here 
the correct reading. The words are clearly written and plainly 
divided; by no possibility could they be taken for tum. 

The citation of a few readings will show that C, notwithstand- 
ing its lateness, is not dependent for its text upon any MS or 
group of MSS. Of the better MSS, L P H A V, its readings 
agree with those of P and H rather than L and A, and V rather than 
either; and it sometimes agrees with the latter in preference to a 
majority of all the MSS. The comparative agreements of C with 
L A, PH, and V, might accurately be expressed by the increasing 
ratio 5:6:7; as, 


. 146.21 CPH tam vs. LAV om. tam 

147.15 CPH crebro vs. LAV credo 

159. 8 CPH mihi persuast vs. LAV persuasi mthi 
147. 2 CPHV quorsum vs. LA quorsus 

149.10 CPHV atqui vs. LA atque 

143. 35 CPHV morbum vs. LA morborum 

150. 9 CPHV nonne ea vs. LA nonne 

151. 8 CLA natura vs. PHV om, natura 

137. 37 CLA multa vs. PHV multo (or om.) 

148. 14 CLAV lbenter vero vs. PH ego vero 
156.19 CLAV ante partorum vs. PH peractorum 
150. 3 CLAV requiem vs. PH requietem 


Ὁ Ὁ 


These instances exemplify the agreements of Ο with these MSS 
arranged by classes. In reference to the individual MSS, C agrees 


294 GroRGE Reeves THROOP 


with V, H, P, A, L, in the following descending ratio, 7:6:5:5:4; 
it will also at times agree with one of them against the other 


four; as, 


Ὁ UU UPD PUPPY 


181. 1 


CV adiuto vs. LAPH adiuvero 

CV posset vs. LAPH possit 

CV sapienti vs. LAPH sapientibus 

CV eo vs. LAPH hoc (et, etc.) 

CV quis vs. LAPH qui 

CV certa studia vs. LAPH studia certa 
CH sententiae vs. LAPV sctentiae 

CH triumphasset vs. LAPV triumphavisset 
CH quae vs. LAPV quando or quoniam 
CH consolatione vs. LAPV consolatto 

CH mthi visum est vs. LAPV ηι. 6. v. or v. 6. m. 
CP detnde vs. LAVH dein 

CP fugerat vs. LAVH fuerat 

CA nec vs. LVPH ne 

CA pauct iam vs. LVPH pauci 

CA adept: vs. LVPH adeptam 

CL quietatem vs. AVPH quietam 

CL navalesque vs. AVPH navalesve 


C agrees with H’ in a few very important readings; in some 


of these they constitute the chief authority for the text. C agrees 
with H’, in preference to Η', in at least four-fifths of the places 
where readings of H’ are cited. As, p. 137. 13 seniles; 142. 9 
vivebat; 144. 22 nemini mancipata; 149. 35 erecta; 148.6 parts 
(parct) ; 145. 34 tamque pestiferum; 154. 25 morum,; 153. 11 
matiores nostri; 155. 18 est tam; 186. 7 fruebar tunc; but C 
agrees with H’ instead of H’ on p. 144. 84 omnibus (in) his, vs. 
H’ in his; also on p. 159. 5 ΟἿΝ' sententiae, vs, ΟΠ scientiae. 

In relation to the the reading nemini mancipata found on 
p. 144. 22, I will here mention that a late fifteenth-century MS, des- 
ignated as K, and contained in the Cornell University library, has 
the following important reading: nemini emancipata. The same 
MS has also on p. 155. 22 the equally important reading: quod 
est istud. These readings, however, may be emendations of the 
scribe. 

In a few important readings Οἱ or Οὐ agrees with ERI or one 
or more of them in preference to a majority of the other MSS. 


A New Manvsogipt or ΟἸΟΒΕΟΒ De ΘΈΝΕΟΤΟΤΕ 295 


p. 141.28 C’E*RI an ne has vs. Οἱ MSS annales 

p. 142.387 CERI bovum vivum (unum C) utrum igitur vs. MSS vary 
p. 144.19 CER tlla domo mos patrius et disc. vs. MSS corrupt 

p. 146. 8 CER habendam (om. esse) vs. MSS h. e. or e. h. 

p. 158. 2 CERI recte vs. MSS rite 

p. 158. 8 C'ERI? rerum vs. ΟἽ; MSS studiorum 


Yet we find that C never consistently agrees with any one of 
these, and at times radically disagrees from them all; as, 


p. 188.12 C' quam si vs. ΟῚ quam 

p. 141.31 C ipsa ista vs. ER ista ipsa 

p. 145. 36 C (I) longior vs. ER longinquior 
p. 150. 8 C requiem vs. ER requietem 

p. 154. 36 C sed vs. ERI et 

p. 155. 37 C viatt vs. ERI vixerit 


C' or C’ often furnishes readings which would be plausible 
enough if supported by other MS authority. As worthy of notice, 
I would cite: 


p. 188. 23 vetustum ; 133.88 C? hoc futurum est; 184. 35 C? efferent ; 
136. 4 C quae sctentia iuris et augurandi; 187.6 C? infirmum; 187. 11 
Ὁ" ab his; 138.31 C' florescentis; 189.14 C' qui propter; 140.2 serunt ; 
148. 15 Ο' opertus; 150.1 ego] ergo; 150. 5 tantillo; 151.7 rerum rusti- 
carum; 153. 24 aut tam etiam de; 154, 26 at tamen haec morosttas; 
155, 85 scriptum est (om. video); 156.10 C' vivendum; 156.12 C' pro- 
cesseris; 158. 28 Οἱ terram; 160. 3 C' tam mortis. 


A complete collation of the MS. follows: 


p. 131.1 C' adiuto, C? adiuvero. C' levasso, C? levavero—2 versatur 
pectore—8 et qua deprimeris etquid erit pretii—4 michi hic. Οἱ iisdem, 
C? eisdem—7 Οἱ certe, C? certo—9 (Οἱ moderationem, C* modum ratio- 
nem—. 

p. 1382.1 non cog. sol.—2 te] om.—8 te quibus—5 michi visum 
est —7 commune michi—8 etiam]om. ΟἿ adventantis, C* coadventantis 
and advenientis—9 ΟἹ immodice, C? modice—10 sicuti. certe—11 cum 
_ michi—14 abstulerit vel absterserit—16 d.s.1—18 degere possit—20 
de senectute ad te—21 Οἱ Aristarcus, C? Aristillus—22 Marcho—26 
consueverit— 27 attribuito—29 Οἱ boni enim, C* iam enim—32 cum] 
tum — 35 ethna— 37 Scipio et Leli difficilem. 

p. 183.8 a se ipsis—4 potest malum—6 sed eandem omnes. ΟἹ 
adepti, C? adeptam—8 putassent—9 C' cur, C? qui—11 esset gravis— 
12 quam si—14 consolatione. C' posset, C’? potest—16 vestroque— 22 
aliquid esse— 23 ΟἹ fructibus, ΟΣ frugibus. victum vel vetustum—25 
enim est. modo] more—29 et volumus. certe] recte— 33 gratum hoc. 
C' sit, C? est —35 aliquam longam. vel conficias quam. 


296 GroRGE REEvEs THROOP 


p. 184.1 vero ut—2 veteri—3 Οἱ quas, Οὐ que (quae)—4 quae] 
itemque— 10 evenirent omnia—12 se laborum et lib., iam Jax.—14 om- 
nium quoque— 17 C? inequalitas—27 non nobilis, or ignobilis alias non 
nobilis (on margin). C? hercle—28 essem non nobilis nec tu si Athe- 
niensis esses.— 30 non levis— 31 ne] nec —32 enim sunt omnino— 35 ΟἹ 
efferunt, C? efferent — 36 homines nec in. 

p. 135.1 C' benefactorum, C’ beneficiorum—8 fuerat primum. ΟἹ 
cum quo ego quarto, C*? cumque eo, C*? cumque ego—11 deinde edilis. 
sum pretor—13 et suasor. cinthie—15 Οὐ plene. Hanibalem—16 C* 
iuvenem—17 Ennius ait—18 unus qui nobis—19C' non enim, C’* non 
hic—20 C* magisque magisque—21] receperat—23 fugerat— 25 Οἱ arri- 
‘dens, C’ ridens—27 toga fuit—28 C’ resistit 29 Picenum —30 augur 
enim g cum (enim outside of line)—34 nichi] est—35 Marci filij —36 
est] C? cum. 

p. 186. 2 civium] hominum. magnus fuit—4 Οἱ que (quae) scia 
iuris et augurandi, C’ iuris augurii— 5 littere erant in eo. omnia enim — 
7 fruebar tunc, C? tamen— 10 C’ videtur—12 ut] aut—13 expugnatores. 
C' navalesque, C? -ve—14 ut] C? et—15 C' atque, C’ ac. Οἱ eleganter, 
C eliganter. C' levis, C? lenis—16 et (also in 18)—17 mortuus est. 
Socratis— 18 ΟἹ panatheniacus (C’ in marg. panathethicus)— 19 se dicitur 
—20 Leontius — 21 neque] C* nec — 22 ex eo] C* ex quo— 23 esse vellet — 
24 quo—27 fecimus—729 sicut. 8606] C* forte—30 Olimpia —31 οὐ equi 
(C* equidem) et victoris equi (C’ cuius) senectuti—32 Οἱ annum enim 
unde vigesimum, C’ anno enim vigesimo— 34 Accilius—35 (Οἱ consulibus, 
C? consule— 37 (Οἱ suasissem annos, ΟἹ suasi. 

p. 187.1 C' videntur, C’ putantur—3 C' delectare, C’ delectari—5 
avocet senes—6 ΟἹ infirmum—?7 fere privet omnibus—8 Οἱ harum, ΟΣ 
earum—9 et quamque—12 C' an eis, C’ ab his. in iuven.— 13 seniles— 
14 administrantur. nichil ne—15 Scipio socer—18 Appii Claudii. 
accedam qui—19 sentetia—21 1118] C’ ea. prosecutus—24 dementi 
sese flexere. C' ruina, C’? via—26 C' hoc, C’ hec (haec). egit] ΟΣ agit— 
27 Οἱ septemdecim annos, C’ decimo septimo anno—30 fuisse sane—33 
C' his qui, C? ut si qui. agere nichil— 36 pupi—37 C' multa, ΟΣ multo. 
C’ velocitatibus. 

p. 138.5 bellorum] C’ laborum—6 C’ rescribo—7 C' sunt, (5 sint. 
Cartagini—8 bellum inferant—12 trigesimus— 14 censore.—15 cum 
consul—16 ad centesimum si annum—18 cominus—19 et sententia— 
23 gerunt]C’tenent. ΟΣ appellantur— 24 externas— 25 sust.] subst.—26 
C' repperietis, C? repperies and invenietis— 28 percunctantur ut est Nevii 
poete (-ae) posteriori libro-—29 Οἱ sed, C? et—30 C' proveniebant vel 
proventabant, C? pveniebant—31 C? scilicet. ΟἹ florescentis, C? florentis. 
C? senectutis 

p. 189.1 in etate—2 novi eos—3 sunt etiam sed—6 Οἱ senum, (3 
quenque senem or quenquam senem —7 omnia] C’ si autem—8 qui sibi— 


A New Manvusogipt oF Ciorero’s De Senecrorze 297 


12 neque] Ο nec. sedetiam—14 Οἱ qui propter, C’? propter quod—20 
Edippum — 22 Οἱ a desipiente factum, (5 desipientis—23 hunc] om.—24 
Hesyodum. Symonidem. Tersicorem—25 Socratem. Gorgiam—26 
Pictagoram — 27 Οἱ Xenocratem, C? Yxocratem. Cleantem— 29 Stoycum. 
in] C? a. obmutiscere — 30 in his omnibus — 32 C? vocare—35 C?* frugibus 
— 86 his aliis hoc sit minus mirum —37 in annum. 

p- 140.1 (Οἱ his, ΟἹ eis. Οἱ nichil, C’? nil. Οἱ sciunt, C? sciant— 
2 serunt—3 synephebis—7 prodesse—8 qui illud Ennii idem est—9 
nichil—10 apportas. Οὐ satis—11 diu quis. vult—12 vult non con- 
spicit. quidem que—13 vult—14 viciosius dixit—16 se ea etate 
eum esse—22 me hic vobis qui michi—23 C? videte—26 quid quod. 
quid] C? qui(?)—31 C' expellere, C? explere—34 in fidibus. in divinis 
litteris. 

p. 141.1 num plusquam—2 vires tauri. elephantis—4 contemptior 
esse—8 num vero. tuipse. nugator] C? migrator—9 nobilitatus es—10 
Sextus Emilius—17 in senectute—19 persepe ipsa—20 Οἱ disertam, C’ 
diserti. compta—23 Οἱ annales quidem viros senectute relinquimus, 
C? an ne has quidem vires senectutis relinquemus— 24 C’ adolescentulos 
—25 instituant instruant—26 et] om.—27 Affricanus— 81 ipsa ista. et 
si— 34 in eo sermone. 

p. 142.1 puer memini—4 etatis viribus. relinqueret—7 videtis 
ne—5 meipso—9 iam enim tertiam. vivebat—10 nimius—12 ad quam. 
C’? profluebat—14 Ayacis—15 Οἱ sex. Nestoris, C? at quinque. — sibi 
si—16 troya—18 possem—22 C' militaris, ΟΣ plebis or Ο militum. 
Thermophilas.—23 Marco Accilio Glabrione consulibus, (3 consule— 24 
non} C? nec—26 nec} ΟΞ neque—27 C' manet, C? monet— 28 velis] C? 
velit —30 convenire (om. me) valuit, C? voluit—31 quin (or qum) fuerim 
— 32 uterque vis. nec—35 ne ille quidem (om. non.). ne] Ο non.—36 
Olimpie pedes per—37 bovem unum utrum igitur. sust.] subst. 

p. 143. 2 utere—3 Οἱ abest non, C’ absit ne—5 cursus unus—6 
parti. aetatis] om.—7 est post data ut enim infir. (om. et.)— 10 Ὁ recipi— 
11 habitus Massinissa —12 natus] ΟΣ nactus — 13 inequo—14 (Οἱ ascendere, 
C* descendere. imbre—15 C' opertus, C* operto. C' corporis siccitatem, 
Οὐ sinceritatem—18 in senectute—19 non sunt—21 quae. non] om.— 22 
sust.] subst.—23 ad hoc q.n.p. quidem sed nec.—24 C' officium, C* 
officii. ΟἹ ita imbecilles (om. sunt but in gloss), C? imbecilli.—27 Affri- 
cani— 30 Οἱ valentior, ΟΣ uberior—34 ΟἹ cuiusque, C* eiusque. Οἱ com- 
pescenda, Οὐ compensanda—35 pugnandum que est tanquam (C’ sicut) 
contra morbum sic (C’ si)—-36 habenda est. 

p. 144. 1 vero] C’ tamen—4 extinguntur—5 de fatigatione—6 se 
exercendo—7 comicus. hos.— 9 ignavie somniculoseque— 13 omnium sed 
stultorum — 14 et quinque—18 eum serui— 20 mos patrius—21 se ipsam 
— 22 C' nemini mancipata, C? menti—23 probo in (om. probo in 25)—26 
sed animo—29 quam maxime. augurum et pontificum—31 Picthagoreo 


298 GEORGE REEVEs THROOP 


rumque—33 haec] he (hae)—34 omnibus in his—35 ΟἹ magnopere, ΟΣ 
magno opere. 

p. 145.1 ΟἹ quas, C? quae. nequirem]C’ non possem—6 dubito—8 
equitur etiam—9 dic. carere—10 Οἱ illud aufert a, C’? id—12 Archite— 
14 nullam esse—20 nasci dicebat—22 strupra—23 voluptatibus— 25 Οἱ 
atque, C? ac—26 esse tam—29 posset—30 aliquem aliquando—33 quo 
circa — 34 tamque pestiferum— 36 longior.— 37 Sannite. 

p. 146. 1 Οἱ seperati, (2 superati. Titus Victorius—2 Architam. 
Nearcus—6 Ap. Claudio] Publio Camillo Claudio. quorsum—38 romani 
populi—6 quorsum—7 C' haec, C* hoc. C’ intelligatis, C* intelligeretis 
—§8 Ο' intelligentia, C? prudentia. esse] om.—9 ΟἹ effecerit, C* efficeret 
--11 ac mentis. perstringit— 12 comertium—13 Flaminei fratrem con- 
sulem— 16 Οἱ exhortatus, (3 exoratus—17 C' illorum, C? eorum—18 rei 
sententia —20 neutiquam quam. . prob. pot.] C? procrastinari poterant — 
28 a maioribus—25 quod] qui—26 a Thessalo civi audisset esse—29 
Coruncanum—33 qui se (om. qui in 82)—35 Coruncanus. cum] tum. 
tum | tunc.—36 Publii Decii. 

p. 147. 2 quorsum.—6 Οἱ vinolentia, C* violentia—7 insomniis — 
11 pisces hamo. careat—13 Marci filium—14 sepe senem—15 cereo] 
crebro—16 illi gloria—17 iam primum—19 sunt constitute sed sacris 
y deis matris magne, C’ magne matris—20 igitur] enim—21 erat tunc. 
qua] C? quo—22 Οἱ mitiora, C? minora. enim] om.—23 ipsius volup. 
quam] ΟΣ potius—25 C' accubitationem, C? accubationem (cf. De. off. i. 
35. 128).—26 nominaverunt convivium—27 C' tunc, C? tum (so Οἱ and C? 
in 88)—29 Οἱ eodem, C* eo—82 pauci iam—33 -que] C? quoque—34 ΟἹ 
ausit potus et cibi, ΟΣ potiones et cibos—36 videar indixisse bellum. 
est] om. (and add in 37, modus est). 

p. 148.1 voluptatibus ipsis. senectutem sensu.—4C' summo ma- 
gisterio, C? summo magistro. ΟἹ siphosio, C’ siproio—5 ΟἹ refrigerantia, 
ΟΞ refrigeratio—7 Οὐ prosequi—9 Οἱ producimus vario sermone, ΟΣ 
vario sermone producimus—10 This line given to Laelius—11 ne] nec 
—13C' ab, C’ ex. quidam iam quidem affecto, C? confecto— 14 C' vene- 
reis, C? veneris. dii. libenter vero—15 Οἱ a, C* ab. C' aut furioso, C’ 
ac curioso—16 Οἱ vero, C? enim—18 C’ is caret qui—25 etiam tamen— 
26 C' delectatur, C? letatur. propter] prope— 27 eas] (3 θᾶ. in tantum— 
28 quae animum delectant— 29 contentionum— 31 aliquid —32 Οἱ offici- 
oso, C? ociosa —33 videbamus] C? vidimus— 34 C' et, ΟΞ atque. C.] om.— 
37 incepisset. 

p. 149.1 predicere nobis—3 suo bello punico —4 pseudolo—5 sum 
natus—6 ΟἹ Centurio Tuditatinoque, C? Centheno, C’ tuditano—8 pon- 
tificis—10 atque] atqui—11 senes] Οὐ studiis—12 Οἱ suadet, C’ suade 
medullam— 13 C? videbam—16 doctrine sunt. atque] atqui—18 Οἱ est, 
C? sit— 19 quodam ait—21 maior esse potest — 23 Οἱ non, Ο nec— 27 cum 
maiore, C? maiori— 29 ipsa natura—30 Οἱ accipit, (3 excipit—31 id hoc 


A New Manvsogirt oF Cicero’s De ΘΈΝΕΟΤΟΤΕ 299 


occatum— 32 deinde— 34 enixa—35 erecta— 36 e quibus cum emerserit — 
87 ΟἹ spice, C’ spici. (ΟἹ structam, C’ structo. 

p. 150.1 C' morsum, C’ morsus. ego] ergo—3C' requiem, C? requi- 
etem — 5 tantillo—6 ΟἹ acino vinaceo. Οὐ acina vinacio—8 Οἱ ramos ac 
truncos, C? truncos ramosque. plante vites propagines sarmenta radices 
non ne ea —12 om. eadem but in gloss—16 ineunte itaque—18 sese—20 
gustatu acerba—21 tempore—22 cum] tum—724 ipsa cultura et ipsanatura 
—25 aminiculorum—26 iugatio] coniugatio—27 quam] ΟΞ que (quae)— 
28 C' fossiones, C’ fossationes.— 29 terra multo—32 Exiodus. ne] nec— 
34 seculis fuit ante. Laertem—35 eum before agrum—=3?7 sed etiam ortis. 

p. 151.1 Οὐ pomeriis, ΟἹ pomariis. et apium—4 prosequi—5 oblec- 
tamina. Οὐ ea ipsa, C? hec (haec)—6 C' ignoscite—7 et studio] a studio. 
rerum rusticarum— 8 natura.—9 C' videar vendicare, ΟΣ vendicare videar, 
ΟἹ videar excusare—10 truimphasset—14 ΟἹ temporis, C? temporum— 
15 C? pondus auri— 17 Οἱ his, C? eis—18 non efficere senectutem iocun- 
dam— 20 tunc—21 quinto—23 Hala. Aulus, a gloss—24 Emilium—25 
accersebatur (so accersebant in 26)—27 ΟἹ non igitur eorum, C? num 
igitur horum— 28 (3 delectabant — 29 an ulla vita possit esse beatior hac 
neque enim solum officio delector quod —31 quam dixi. ΟΣ salubris—32 
C' et copia, C* copiaque— 33 Οἱ ut quoniam hec quidam eorum desiderant, 
C? ut hee quidem quoniam quidam— 37 enim porco. 

p. 152.2 supervacanei—4 aut de—65 Οἱ brevi predicam, C’ precidam, 
C? breviter libabo—7 spetie—8 ΟἹ delectat, C? oblectat—9 Οἱ aut, C? 
eque. vel] C? aut—10 Οἱ aut igni, C* vel igni—11 sibi ergo habeant. 
ergo] ΟἹ igitur—12 ΟἹ sibi pilam, C* et pilam—14 C' atque thesseras, ΟΣ 
et thesaras. C’ libebit, C? licebit. utrum—15C' potest esse senectus, ΟΣ 
esse potest—17 C’ sciatis, C’ faciatis—19 ΟἹ ethonomicus, C* equonomi- 
cus—21 Senocrates. cribotolo in gloss, crythobolo in text—-22 Cyrum 
regem persarum minorem—23 ingenio virum—26 communem—27 et 
consit.— 28 Lisander— 30 Οἱ suauitates, C? suauitatem—31 a floribus— 
33 atque] et. 1114] C? ista—36 istarum] illarum. 

p. 153. 1 persarum—2 gemmis fulgentem. rite vero] recte vero. 
(gl. certe)—3 ferunt] C? dicunt— 4 C' licet frui, C? frui licet. C' non, C’ 
nec—6 ΟἹ studio teneamur, C? studia teneamus—8 Οἱ vitam produxisse, 
C? perduxisse—10 Οἱ quadraginta et sex, C’ sex et triginta—11 itaque. 
maiores nostri— 12 cursus illi— 13 etas extrema huius—14 media erat— 
16 C’ Accilio Calvino, C? Calatino (om. A.)—17 elogicum unicum — 18 et 
populi—19 notum est totum carmen— 20 Οἱ est, C? esset —22 quem] C? 
que— 23 de Scipione Affricano— 24 ante] etiam —26 C? honerata— 29 Ο' 
meam senect., C? eam me senect.— 30 institua sit. id efficitur—34 capit] 
ΟΞ accipit. 

p. 154. 1 C' bene morate sunt, C? obtime morata est.—3 C’ cuius 
mentionem feci, C? cuius modo feci mentionem. aiunt dic.—5 ΟΣ in 
tantum—7 Οἱ traditum, C’ proditum—8 Οἱ theatris, C? theatrum. ΟἹ 


800 GrorGEe Reeves THROOP 


consensu, ΟΞ consessu—9 ei nusquam—10 accessit—13 C' datus esset 
multiplex, C* esset multiplex datus—15 nolle facere. C' nostro, C’ 
vestro—17 C primatum. C’ nec—20 C’ corporum—23 (Οἱ istriones, C? 
istoriones. Οὐ corruisse in extremo actu— 25 Οἱ queruntur, C’ querimus. 
C' morum, C* morbi— 26 at tamen hec morositas— 27 C' ullius, C? illius — 
28 Οἱ iuste videtur, C* posse videatur—30 ΟἹ omnia tamen, Ο tam—3l 
cum] tum. fiunt] C* fuerint (?)—32 invita — 33 duritas — 34 res sese —35 
natura. C* coaccessit —36 sed. C' aliam, C’ alia —37 avaritia] C* avarus. 

p. 155. 2 minus vie (viae) restat—5 etatem videtur habere—6 non 
longe potest abesse—7 ΟἹ qui in t. 1. et. cont. vitam esse non viderit, 
C* qui mortem cont. esse in t. ]. et. non viderit, etc.—10 C' ducit eum, 
C eum deducit. fructus eternus—11 esse certe inveniri nichi]——13 C’ 
est tam, C? quamquam quis etiam stultus quamvis sit adolescens, Οἱ 
adolescens sit—15 esse. illa etas.—16 Οἱ mortis casus habet, Οὐ casus 
mortis habet, C* casus habet mortis—18 perpauci— 19 nisi accideret — 20 
enim et ratio—22 quid est istud—24 tum inopt. C' tum inexp. C’ tu 
in—25 ad. O scipio—26 communem esse—28 enim] est and enim in 
gloss— 29 habere] om.— 30 C' nec quid sperat quod habet, Οἱ quod speret 
quidem. C' et .... meliori, C’ at . . . . meliore—31 quod id] cum id. 
conditione— 32 vixit diu —33 in vita hominis—34 supremum. Tarsiorum 
—35 video] est—36 Archan. . Gadibus] grandis. regnavit—37 ΟἹ vixit 
centum viginti, ΟἹ cxx vixerit. ne] nec. 

p. 166. 1 C' sed michi quidem nec diuturnum quicquam, ΟἹ quic- 
quid. (gloss, sed michi ne diuturnum quidem quicquam).—2 extremum 
est—4 Οἱ benefactis recte, C’ recte facis—5 Οἱ unquam, C? usquam —7 
cuique—8 (Οἱ placet, C’? placeat—9 est fabula—10 Οἱ sapienti usque in 
finem plaudite vivendum est, C’? veniendum, Οὐ sapientibus usque ad 
plaudite veniendum— 12 Οἱ processeris, C? processerit— 14 auctumnum- 
que— 15 enim} C’ etiam—16 Οἱ vero, C? autem—17 C' de metendis, C’ 
metendis, C* metiendis. Οὐ accomoda—18 autem] C’ enim—23 itaque 
sic (om. sic in 24)—25 senes autem cum sua sponte sic nulla adhibita vi 
ut cons.—28 si cruda sunt vi avelluntur. C' cocta, (3 coacta— 29 sic vis 
ad. vitam aufert—35 C' possis et tamen mortem contemnere, C’ possit 
(gloss, quoad possis).—37 Pysistrato tiranno. 

p. 157.1 C' spe, C? re—2 Οἱ resisteret, (ΟΣ obsisteret. resp. dic. sen.] 
respondit senectute—3 finis est. vivendi] C’? vite—5 coaugmentavit. 
ut aed.}] aut ed.—6 Οἱ destruxit, ΟΣ destruit. facilime—7 hominem] C? 
hominum—11 Pyctagoras. C' sine iussu, C? iniussu—13 C’ recedere. 
elogium est—14 mortem suam — 15 esse carum se— 17 C' nec, C? neque— 
20 consequitur. si aliquis—25 nemo esse. est certe. et id inc.—26 an 
eo ipso die. ab omnibus —27 qui] quis—28 videtur esse opus—29 Οἱ 
recordor non tantum, C’ recorder. est] om.—30 Οἱ interemptus, C’ inter- 
fectus—31 Attilium—34 corporibus suis] C? vi corporis sui—35 (Οἱ prelio, 
C ignominia. 


A New Manovsogipt or Cicero’s De ΘΈΝΕΟΤΟΤΕ 9801 


p. 158.1 C'nec, C? ne—2 passus est carere. quod] quas—8 C' sepe, 
C esse—4 C! erecto, C? recto. unde nunquam se red.—5 C' quod, C’ 
quid. Ο' hi qui, C? hi quidem—7 C’' extimescunt, C’ extimescent. qui- 
dem ut michi—8 C' rerum, C* studiorum —9 certa studia—10 sunt et— 
12 eius] huius. ne] num—18 sunt autem —14 occidunt etiam —16 mortis 
affert maturum. equidem non enim—17 quid] quod—18 melius cernere 
michi—19 tu Publi Scipio tuque Gai Leli—24 C' altissimo, C* aptis- 
simo —26 Οἱ scilicet in locum, C*? locum (om. scilicet in).—28 ΟἿ terram, 
C* terras — 80 Οἱ non, C? nec— 381 sed etiam. ita in gloss—388 Picthag. et 
Picthag.—34 quicum. nominati quondam-—37 die vite (vitae). 

p. 159.1 C? disseruit (?)—2 apollinis oraculo— 3 michi persuasi— 
5 C' providentia, ΟΣ prudentia. C' sententie, ΟἹ scientie—7 animus 
agitetur—8 ipse se. ne] nec—9 sit] C? esset—10 esset] om. (but in 
gloss)—-11 admistum. Οἱ disparque suique diss., -que] C* atque—12 Οἱ 
posset, C? possit—14 C' pluraque, C? pleraque. Οὐ qui, ΟΣ quod—16 
arripere] accipere—17 fere sunt— 19 dixit. karissimi— 21 nec] neque — 22 
videbatis meum — 25 C? videbatis—27 Οἱ eorum, C’ illorum. C' diutius, 
C? iustius —29 persuaderi nunquam — 30 ΟἹ exissent, ΟΣ excessissent — 31 
tum — 33 admistione — 86 et cet.—37 discedant. 

p. 160. 2 discedit—3 ΟἹ tam mortis, C? morti tam—7C' sunt, C’ 
sint—8 C' cum plane se vinculis corporis relaxaverint, C* laxaverint, C’ 
cum se plane corporum vinculis relaxaverint —9 C’ colite, C’ colitote— 
10 C' interitus est, C? interiturus—12 ΟἹ pulcritudinem omnem, omnem] 
C? communem— 14 Cyrrus vero hec quidem—16 Paulum et A/fricanum 
(bis).— 17 ΟἹ δὲ multos, ΟΣ multo—20 ipsos] posse—21 an ne. meipso— 
23 isdem] iisdem— 25 Οἱ quietatem, C? quietam. multo melius— 26 sine 
ullo labore et contemnere traducere, C’ contentione (?)— 28 C? de vita— 
29 et nisi ita—31 C' immortalitatis gloriam, C? immortalem — 88 et quis- 
que stultissimus. is] ΟἹ his—34 C' cernit, C? cernat—35 ΟἹ cuius, C’ 
cui — 87 C' vivendi, C? vivendo. vero] enim. 

p. 161. 1 habebo. etiam illos. Οἱ unde, C? de quibus—2 C' con- 
scripsi, C? conscripsi— 4 Οἱ neque tanquam pilam retorsit,C*? nec ..... 
retorserit. quis] Ο qui—5 Οἱ ex hac vite etate repueriscam tenera, ΟΣ 
repetam—7 enim vita habet—8 ΟἹ sane habeat, ΟΣ habet sane—10C' 
licet, C? libet —11 ΟἹ indocti, C? docti— 13 C' et ex vita hac ita, etc., C’ et 
ex vita hac ex hospitio discedo non tanquam domo— 14 6] om. (ex in gl.). 
diversorium—15 nobis dedit non habitandi dedit—16 ad illud. C 
divinorum humanorum—17 C' cum ex hac turba et colluvione, C? turbe 
colluvione—18 solum ad eos—21 C? accrematum— 22 eius me non —28 
ipsi] ipse—27 ΟἹ igitur, C? michi—32 dilector—33 C' morior totus, C? 
mortuus— 34 Οἱ ut hunc, C? ne hunc. 

p. 162.1 sic et—2 defaticationem—38 C' societate, C sacietate 


WasHINGTON UNIVERSITY 
St. Louis 


LIVY’S USE OF NEQUE AND NEVE WITH AN 
IMPERATIVE OR SUBJUNCTIVE 
By Emory B. Lease 


The present investigation has two objects in view, the one 
syntactic, to discover the principles that determined Livy’s use of 
one of these particles in preference to the other;' the other formal, 
to ascertain to what extent his use of the longer or shorter form 
of each was in harmony with the general rules’ governing the use 
of other particles which likewise appear in a double form, as 
atque—ac, neque—nec, sive—seu, and deinde—dein.’ For con- 
venience, the matter of form will be taken up first. 

1. Forman 
A. HISTORICAL 

1. Prose.—It may be said in a general way that where parti- 
cles appear in two forms the shorter put in their appearance later 
and were not used extensively until a comparatively late period in 
the development of the language. The first to be considered are 
neu and seu, and a tabular form of exposition has been adopted, 
to exhibit more clearly the facts of their use. 


Se. de Bacch. 
Varro R. R. 
Lex Bant, 
Suetonius 
(hm) 


cook 


ono 


owols | Ler acit. 


1“ Wanschenswert ware eine Untersuchung fiber den Gebrauch von neve im Ver- 
gleich mit dem von neque.” —Schmalz Anfibarbarus’ II, p. 145. 

?In this investigation, as in those preceding, the latest Teubner texts were used, 
and MS variants noted. Owing to the occasional confusion of the forms by the 
scribes, absolute accuracy cannot of course be claimed for the results. It is main- 
tained, however, that they are sufficiently accurate to show the general rules observed 
in the use of these particles. The evidence of contemporary inscriptions is of course 
important, and this will be found to corroborate the statements bere made. 

For the writer's previous treatment of atque and ac cf. Studies in Honor of B. L. 
Gildersleeve, pp. 414 f.; of neque and nec, Class. Rev. XVI (1902), pp. 212 f.; of deinde 
and dein, Am. Jour. Phil. XXVIII (1907), pp. 387 f. 


"CrasstcaL Partoxoar III, July, 1908) 802 


Livy’s Use or ΝΈΟΥΣ AND Neve 303 


Remarks. It is to be noted that: (1) The 5 occurrences of neu in 
Cato Agr. are read in two passages. The striking exception to the 
general rule, therefore, that in prose neu was not used until the time of 
Caesar and Sallust, throws some doubt upon the correctness of the MS 
tradition in these two passages. (2) With Caesar’ and particularly 
Sallust begins a decided break from the-earlier usages. In Caesar neu 
reaches as high a proportion as 69.2 per cent., in Sallust even higher, 
76.2 per cent. Livy follows with 57.9 per cent., Tacitus with 59.2 per 
cent. Suetonius (Ihm), however, uses neu only once, Jul. 42. 1, but neve 
5 times, Curtius, on the other hand, neu 4 times, neve not at all. 


a) A striking contrast is found between the frequency of 
neve (neu) in a legal sphere, as in Col. Gen. Jul.’ 102 times, and 
its rarity in biography, as in Nepos, 4 times. It is noteworthy 
also that, whereas this particle was used 76 times by Livy and 27 
times by Tacitus, it was not used at all by the Auct. Her. and in 
only one passage by Seneca (prose), Hp. 7. 8, with no variant 
noted by Hense,’ and in only two by Justin (R.), 6. 3. 8: 18. 4. 10. 

b) Sallust is conspicuous for his fondness for the forms neu 
and seu, and Curtius used only the form neu, but sive 33 times. 

c) The history of seu presents similar phenomena; its appear- 
ance in prose literature begins with 5.7 per cent. in Cicero, rises 
to 34.1 per cent. in Caesar, 65.7 per cent. in Sallust, and reaches 
its greatest height in Livy, 75.2 per cent. 

d) Both in his use of new and of seu Livy follows Sallust 
rather than Cicero. 

e) Cicero objected to the form neu, but not to seu. The latter 
form was not used by Auct. Her. also, but sve is found 7 times. 

Ff) In the Lex Rubria, 49 B. o., neither neu nor seu nor nec 
was used, but neve 4 times and sive 3 times, and neque 8 times. 
Later usage may be illustrated by Quintilian, in whom sive is 


1For Caesar Kfibler’s ed. was used, and for Sallust, Eussner’s. To Meusel Lex 
Caes. add B. 6. 1. 26. 6 and B. C. 1. 64. 2. 


2 For the inscriptions referred to Schneider’s Dial. Ital. exempla was used with the 
exception of the Lex Munic., Lex Col. Gen. Iul., where Kabler Caes. III. 2. was con- 
sulted. 


8loehring De Particulis, p. 51 says (the statement is quoted by Hense to Sen. Ep. 
123. 7): ‘*neve apud Senecam nusquam inveni.’’ In his tragedies, however, this par- 
ticle is used: neve Her. Fur. 655, 681, Troad. 553, Phoen. 556, Oed. 73, Agam. 184, 
Thyest. 94, Oct. 254, 271; neu Phaedr. 1250. Neve (neu) is, therefore, found 12 times 
in Seneca! 


304 Emory B. LEASE 


found 77 times,' sew 17 times (18 per cent.), by Tacitus, sive 99 
times, seu 104 (51.2 per cent.), and by Suetonius (Ihm), sive 
6 times, sex 9 (60 per cent.). In strong contrast to these 
stood Seneca Phil. (prose), who used sive 160 times and seu 
twice, NV. Q. 2. 59. 3, with no variants noted by Gercke. As 
Seneca did not use neu, the use of seu in this one passage may be 
accounted for by his fondness for variety of expression: sive 
. sive... . Seu... SEU. 

With the growth in the use of neu and seu may be compared 
that of ac and nec. The following table shows the growth of ac 
in history. | 


s|a!.|.|2 
: Ὥ π Ξ | 2 2 5 
Mitory 7 2] ὃ δ el] at [3 | 
mM © vA — > > ῳ ΕἸ Ὁ 
Atgue.......... o77| 483] 69 |1,011| 58| 155| 62| 312) 217 
rrr 10} 189] 42 | 1147] 122] 802 147 803] 627 


It is a striking fact that there is a nearly regular increase in 
the use of ac from 28.4 per cent. in Sallust to 30.6 per cent. in 
Caesar, 37.8 per cent. in Nepos, 63.4 per cent. in Livy, 67.7 per 
cent. in Velleius, 66.1 per cent. in Val. Max., 70.3 per cent. in 
Curtius, 74.1 per cent. in Tacitus, and 74.3 per cent. in Suetonius. 
Note the contrast between the 28.4 per cent. in Sallust and 74.3 
per cent. in Suetonius. 

Similarly nec increases from 0.09 per cent. in Sallust (neque = 
206, nec = 2)and 0.06 per cent. in Nepos (neque = 155, nec =1) to 
8.08 per cent. in Caesar (neque = 405, nec = 39), to 71.5 per cent. 
in Livy (first two books of each decade neque =159, nec = 398), 
but to 53.2 per cent. in Tacitus (neque=445, nec=506). In 
Petronius the proportion reached as high as 77.2 per cent. (neque 
= 49, nec=166).? Late Latin usage may be illustrated by Ma- 


1 Bonnell Lex. Quint., 8. v. ‘stve,”’ cites only 34 occurrences of sive and 4 of seu. 
To sive (seu) ‘“‘simpliciter”’ add 1. 4. 20; 5, 10. 53; 74; 8 pr. 25, a usage found in all 
eix times. 

2 Varro's usage, however, is exceptional: in L. L. and R. R. he uses neque 205 
times, nec 77 times (= 27.3 per cent.). Oato Agr. used neque 28 times, and nec twice 
(6.6 per cent.). 


Livy’s Use or Neouvz anp Neve 805 


crobius, Sat. i, where nec reaches as high as 84.2 per cent., and 
by Augustine Civ. D. i, where it reaches 87 per cent. 

So also dein: contrast 4 per cent. in Cicero, 10 per cent. in 
Caesar, 15 per cent. in Livy, with 66 per cent. in Tacitus. Livy’s 
usage by decades is as follows: 


Decades Deinde Dein 
First........ 

ird....... 194 54 
Fourth...... 203 
41-45........ 83 14 

Total...... 713 125 


In contrast to the usage of Tacitus stands Seneca Phil., who 
did not use dein at all in his prose. Deinde, on,the other;hand, 
is found 170 times in Seneca Dial. alone. In Suetonius (Ihm) 
deinde was used 71 times, dein 18 times, 20.2 per cent. 

2. Poetry.—Here metrical considerations had much to do 
with a more extended use of neu than we find in prose. 


8 

a Β 3 3 

Poet Ξ ὃ τι ὃ Ξ ῷ 
ΙΕ ἘΠἘΠ|Ξ τ Ξξ|Ξ3|ξξ 
δι r= > re δ δ G ἣν ὃ 
Neve ......0006- 2 10 4 70 0 1 7 9 
CU .ccccccccece 11 2 21 19 18 3 14 5 1 


Poetical usage may, therefore, be illustrated as follows: new is 
represented by 32.4 per cent. in Plautus, by 50 per cent. in Terence, 
by 67.7 per cent. in Vergil, by 82.6 per cent. in Horace, by 20.5 
per cent. in Ovid, but in Seneca by 10 per cent. Of the elegiac 
poets, Catullus with new at 100 per cent. and Tibullus at 93.3 per 
cent. show a contrast to Propertius with neu at 41.7 per cent., 
who in this regard also is more archaic. Catullus uses only 
neu, Tibullus only seu, and Propertius has about the same 
proportion for each, 41.7 per cent. for new and 43.9 per cent. 
for seu. : 


806 Emory B. LEASE 


B. NEU AND SEU BEFORE A VOWEL 


Neu' like ac and dein,’ like nec always in Caesar and generally 
in Cicero, was avoided before a vowel, as was to be expected from 
its origin.” Neu never appears before a vowel in Cato Agr. (5),* 
Plautus (11), Terence (2), Sallust (22), Cicero,’ Caesar (18), 
Nepos (1), Catullus (3), Tibullus (14), Propertius (5), Ovid 
(18), Vergil (20), Horace (19), and in Tacitus (31) only once, 
Ann. 15. 63. Livy also paid some attention to this rule; for out 
of the 44 times that he uses neu it occurs only 5 times before a 
vowel, 3 of these being with a second neu before a consonant 
(8. 32. 15; 25. 7. 4, 38.5). It is to be noted that new was not 
used before a vowel after the first decade, except twice in Book xxv. 

Seu also was, in the main, subjected to similar restrictions. 
While sew was never used before a vowel by Caesar (14), Catul- 
lus (5), Tibullus (20), Propertius (25), Vergil (32), Horace (65), 
Seneca Trag. (11), Tacitus (100), Plin. Min. (21), and only 
once in Cicero (Or. and Phil.) (16), in Verr. 5. 152, seu being 
used here three times, and only once in Quintilian (16), 7. 2. 48: 
‘“‘seu nostra seu aliena,” and Suetonius (9), Iul. 57 seu sol seu 
imber, Livy, on the other hand, used it before a vowel 46 times 
out of a total 185 times. 


O. NEVE AND SIVE BEFORE A CONSONANT 


Judging from the facts revealed by an examination of the latest 
texts of the writers of the best period, there was considerable vari- 
ance in the usage of these two forms. Afque, it may be noted by 
way of comparison, in all of the nine historians examined, with the 
exception of Sallust, showed a decided preference for its use before 
a vowel.” In early times, as indicated by the usage of Cato Agr. 


1Kahner Lat. Gr. IT, p. 656, is to be corrected. 

?For exceptions to the rule cf. Lease Am. Jour. Phil. XXVIII (1907), p. 40, and 
add Plin. Mai. (M.) 30. 106. Dein was also used by Suetonius (Ihm) 18 times, but 
never before a vowel. 

8Of. Niedermann-Hermann Hist. Laut. des Lat. (1907), 832. 

4The number of times neu, in the latter, seu, is used before a consonant is placed 
in parentheses. 

5Cicero (Or. and Phil.) uses neu but once, T'usc. 1. 106, in a poetical passage. 

6 Atque before a consonant is represented in Sallust by 57.4 per cent., in Caesar by 
13.4 per cent., in Nepos by 19.7 per cent., in Livy, to be specially noted, by 5.4 per cent., 
in Vell. by 12.1 per cent., Val. Max. by 16.1 per cent., Ourtius, 11.3 per cent., Tacitus, 
21.2 per cent., and Suetonius, 26.3 per cent. 


Livy’s Use or Neque anp Neve 307 


and Varro R. R., neve was used oftener before a consonant than 
before a vowel, by the former 9 to 4, by the latter 3 to 2. Neve 
before a consonant may, therefore, be said to begin with 69.2 per 
cent. in Cato, 60 per cent. in Varro, but by the time of Sallust’ 
we find this reduced to 40 per cent., in Cicero to 61.5 per cent., and 
in Caesar to 14.3 per cent. It is to be noted, however, that in two 
Senatus-consulia of the time of Caesar, the Lex Munic. and the 
Lex. Col. Gen. Iul., in each of which neve alone is used, in keep- 
ing with the preference of the ancient usage for the longer form 
before a consonant, we find neve thus used 70.5 per cent. of the 
total in the former, and 72.5 per cent. in the latter. In Cicero, 
also, the earlier usage still prevails, i. e., neve is used before a con- 
sonant 24 times (—61.5 per cent.), and 15 times before a vowel. 
It may be noted that Livy, who in his use of new and sew follows 
Sallust rather than Cicero, by using neve 15 times before a con- 
sonant (42.8 per cent.), and 20 times before a vowel, in this 
regard also allies himself with Sallust. The later historians, Tacitus 
and Suetonius, also follow the earlier usage, as in the former neve 
before a consonant is represented by 66.7 per cent., in the latter 
by 60 per cent. 

In poetry, where metrical convenience must be taken into con- 
sideration, we find two schools, the principle of division being the 
use of neve before consonants. The one is represented by Plautus 
(before consonant 2, vowel 9), Terence (before consonant 0, 
vowel 2), Vergil (before consonant 3, vowel 7), the other Horace 
(before consonant 3, vowel 1), Propertius (before consonant 5, 
vowel 2), and Ovid (before consonant 61, vowel 9). It will be 
noted that in none of the above is the difference so marked as in 
Ovid, and that here it is so great as to make it appear to be inten- 
tional and not accidental. Furthermore in Seneca neve is only 
used before a consonant. 

From the point of view of a decided preference for using sive 
before a consonant, Horace stands out prominent among all the 
writers examined. This writer uses sive in this way 19 times, 
but only once (Sat. 23. 87) before a vowel. With this usage 


1 Sallust shows two examples, not one as the Anfibarbarus’, 8. v., states, neve nobis 
Cat. 33.5and neve cum Cat. 51.43. The latter is used by Oaesar also, B. G.6.20.1(K). 


808 Emory Β. Lrase 


compare that of the following writers, where the number of times 
sive is used before a vowel in each is placed first: Caesar 18-14, 
Cicero (Or. and Phil.) 120-140, Livy 28-33, Quintilian 44-33, 
Plin, Min. 12-14, and of the poets Catullus 3-5, Propertius 15-17, 
Vergil 13-8, and Seneca Trag. 4-16. 


D. USAGE BEFORE NON 


Cicero uses neve non (Lael. 78), sive non (De fato 28-380, 
eight times),’ Livy neve non (37. 53. 6), neque non® (24. 2. 4), 
but atque non, according to Schmalz Synt.', § 224, is found only 
in Plin. Mai. In this writer I have noted 18 occurrences of 
atque non. Plaut. Trin. 104, however, has afgue non in G. and 
Sch.’s edition, as also in Lindsay’s. Theoretically, such forms 
ought not to occur at all. Cf. p. 306 above, n. 3. . 


II. SyNTACTICAL 


In any discussion of the use of the two particles, neque and 
neve, the etymology of each should not only serve as the starting- 
point, but be kept constantly in mind. Néque, being composed 
of the old negative particle πὸ (cf. né-fas, né-queo) and the copu- 
lative conjunction, -que, has a force which may be represented by 
et non. Néve, on the other hand, being composed of the common 
conjunction πὸ and the disjunctive -ve (cf. Sk. vd) has a force, 
which, by way of distinction, may be represented by et πᾶ (origi- 
nally autné). Accordingly, the fact that non is a word negative, 
né a clause negative, points to the difference between neque and 
neve, with the result that the former is conjunctive, the latter dis- 
junctive, and that the former throws the stress of the emphasis upon 
a single word, the latter upon a clause. It follows also, that, as the 
particular word to be negatived may be a verb, néque may be used 
where we might expect néve, but not vice versa. The use of neque 
(et non) with an imperative or subjunctive may be compared 
with the occasional use of non with these moods. 


A. OO-ORDINATE CLAUSES 
Inasmuch as né is the regular negative of a command both with 
the imperative and the subjunctive, and as néque does not contain 


1Cf. also Cic. De fin. 2. 41 and Quint. 2. 4. 35. 
2In Varro L. L. and R. R., neque non is found 4 times, but nec non 10 times. 


Livy’s Use or ΝΈΟΥΞ ann Neve 309 


né, but néve does, the latter is the appropriate negative with these 
moods, and is particularly effective, owing to the reiteration of the 
né, in peremptory prohibitions. 

In Livy’s use of neque and neve six things are to be noted: 

1. Neque, rare in Cicero, once in Sallust,’ and not at all in 
Caesar, is used by Livy oftener than neve, and forms another 
feature of his poetic style." To Draeger I’, p. 818, add: Livy 
9. 9. 9; 21. 22. 6; 22. 3. 10. 

2. Neque is used only after an affirmative, neve only after a 
negative, except in 38. 38. 8. 

3. Neque is used nine times with the subjunctive and only 
twice with the imperative. 

4. Neque.... neque is found but once; so also neu... . neu. 

5. Nec with a deponent is used but once, 5. 53. 3. 

Livy’s detailed usage is as follows: 


a. After a Positive 


1. Neque with an imperative: used only twice by Livy, and in 
official documents, 22. 10. 5: ‘‘profanum esto neque scelus esto,” 
and 38. 38. 8: “elephantos tradito omnis neque alios parato.” 

2. Neque (nec) with a subjunctive: found 9 times: with an 
imperfect twice, neque, 21. 22. 6 (in O. O.), nec 21. 22.9; with a 
present and a second neque once, 22. 39. 21: “intentus sis neque 


1Cf. Jug. 87. 45: ‘‘Capessite rem p.... . neque quemquam.. . . metus ceperit.”’ 


2For neque with an imperative in poetry cf. Draeger H. 8. 13, p. 328, and Blase 
H. Gr. 111, p. 246. Each cites but one passage in Martial, 5. 48. 7, but here the latest 
texta do not have nec. This writer shows but 4 examples, 3. 2. 12; 4. 14.11; 7. 98. 7; 
18. 110.1. To the 8 examples for Ovid cited by Draeger add: Am. 1. 8, 63; 2. 2. 26; 
A. a. 2. 385; Rem. Am, 221, 222; Her. 15. 31; Tr. 1. 9. 65; 2.1.81; Met. 2. 464; 5. 281; 
8. 483, 550; 9. 792; 13. 839; Fast. 2. 67.5; 8, 497, 829; 5. 412; 6. 291, 380 (20). Allare 
after a positive exc. A. a. 2, 335. Whereas neque was used 28 times, neque was used 
only 12 times, all being after a positive exc. Met. 10. 352. 

For neque with a subjunctive, cf. Draeger 13, p. 313, Blase, p. 198. To Draeger’s 
lists for Plautus add Bacch. 847, Curc. 27, Pseud. 272; for Horace Ep. 19. 9 and 11; 
neither Draeger nor Blase cite any examples from Martial (with pres.=11, with perf.=5), 
or from Statius. For the former cf. H. S. Lowther Synt. of Mart. (Diss. Univ. of 
Penn., 1906), and for the poets of the Silver Age, W. K. Clement A.J.P. XXI (1900), 
pp. 156f. Blase cites Ter. Eun. 1080, and omita Hun. 77; also Prop. 1.9. 25; Pers. 
1.7; 3.73. To Draeger I, p. 313, add for Ovid: Am.1. 8.65; A. a. 1. 75, 135, 516, 584; 
2. 111, 333; 8, 285; Rem. 628; Met. 2.129; 8. 792; 9. 698; 13. 189, 756; 15. 18, 175; Ibis 
273, 301, 559, 618, 627; Pont. 1. 4.5; 2. 6. 14; 8.6.18; F. 1. 688, 692; 4. 68, 100, 757; 
6. 778 (81). Neve at the beginning of a period, according to Draeger II?, Ὁ. 695, found 
only in Ovid, is much more common in that writer than one would infer from his list 
of six occurrences. Asa matter of fact this usage is found at least 36 times. 


. 


810 Emory B. LEase 


.... desis neque... . des,” i.e. “and neither .... nor;” 
with a perfect, however, 5 times, once to introduce a parenthesis, 
“ego contra... . nec id mirati sitis,’’ and 3 times to begin a 
sentence: “Nec... . quaesiverit,” 9.9.11; “Nec... . existi- 
maritis,” 21.43.11; “Nec .... egeritis” 28. 8. 8; once aftera 
present subj., 22. 8. 10: ‘“‘Hannibal . ... perveniat nec... . 
nos hinc moverimus.” Note the original parataxis in 44. 36. 11: 
“ge suadere, adgrediatur nec amittat.” (In 21. 41. 16 nec goes 
with the following solum. ) 

8. Neve, found only once, but in a passage containing a gap 


in the MSS, 38. 38. 8: “tradito .... neu plures ... . neve 
plures . . . . habeto neve monerem (habeto),”’ i. e. “and neither 
. norand.... not.” 


ὃ. After a Negative 


Only ne... . neve used, and 9 times, once with a perfect 
subj., 22. 10. 5: “ne .... esto neve... . cleptum erit’’ 
(ancient formula), and 8 times with an imperative, all being in 
two official documents, 38. 11. 2, 6, 7; 38. 38. 2, 3, 6, 9, 15. 

Note also 38. 38. 2: “nequem ... . transire sinito neu com- 
meatu new qua alia ope iuvato,” i.e., ‘and neither... . nor.” 
Cf. also B. 3. infra. 

B. SUBORDINATE OLAUSES 

In final clauses neve is the appropriate particle to be used 
whenever a choice of alternatives is to be given. Where, how- 
ever, the second clause is added as a continuance to the first 
clause, we should expect ef né, and failing that, néque, though 
inaccurate, would have to serve. This usage of ut... . neque 
is rare, but common in the consecutive sentence, where ut... . 
neque=ut....et ut né=ut....et ut non. In a final 
sense Sallust uses uf... . neque not at all; Cicero (Or. and 
Phil.) 25 times as a consecutive, and 6 times’ as a final (19.4 


1Ut.... neque final: Oicero Verr. 2. 41: ‘‘eum commonefacit uf... . utatur 
- + « « nec cogat;”’ 3. 18: *“‘ postularunt ut... . adderent neque recederent;’’ 8. 115: 
(postularunt) uf... . praetermittam neque eos appellem;”’ Off. 2. 73: "" videndum 
erit ei ut... . teneat neque.... flat;”’ Div. Caec. 52: “‘suadebit tibi uf.... 
discedas neque reapondeas;’? De or. 1. 19: “hortemur ut... . complectantur 
neque .... confidant.’? Oaesar B. G. 2. 10. 5: ‘‘persuaderi ut... . morarentur 
neque .... ferrent;’’ B. C.3. 92.2: " praedixerat uf... . exciperent neque.... 
moverent,”’ 


Livy’s Use or ΝΈΟΥ anp Neve 311 


per cent.); Caesar 11 times consecutive, twice final (15.4 per 
cent.); Nepos 7 times only as consecutive, but Livy 9 times 
consecutive and 16 times final (64 per cent.). It may be 
noted that in final clauses while Sallust uses ut... . neve 8 
times and ut... . neque once, and Caesar wi... . neve 
9 times, uf... . neque twice, Cicero and Livy use each com- 
bination almost the same number of times, 4'-6 by the former, 
14-16 by the latter. In Caesar uf... . neque is always used 
with two verbs; in Cicero always, except Verr. 3. 227; 4. 45; 
Tusc. 5.13; and in Livy always, except 3. 58. 5. 

1. Ut... . neve,’ the normal form of the final clause, in Livy 
always with two verbs: ut... . neve (twice in Caesar B. G. 
6.20.1; 8. C. 3. 103. 4): 2. 82. 2; 4.14.5; 25. 28. 4; 26. 84. 
7 (=4), but more commonly ut... . neu, as in Caesar (7): 2. 
15.2; 3.44.12; 8. 80. 2; 32.12; 24.30.14; 25.1.12; 29. 2. 13; 
82. 22.6; 33. 46.7; 39. 19.4 (-Ξ- 10). Note also the parataxis in 
8. 55. 6; 28. 36. 2; 34. 35. 5, and especially 25. 9. 4: ‘monuit, 
irentnecquemquam .... paterenture?.... essentneu.... 
facerent,”’ and 26. 34. 7: “‘iusserunt ita ut nemo... . esset 

. neve quis . . . . manerent.”’ 

2. Ut... . neque, the abnormal form in a final sentence, 
found not at all in Sallust, six times in Cicero, and but twice in 
Caesar, was used more freely first by Livy, i.e., wf... . neque 
final, in Nepos 0 per cent., in Caesar 15.4 per cent., in Cicero 
19.4 per cent., but in Livy 64 per cent. Draeger II’, p. 697, 
cites 8 examples of wi... . nec in Livy, and comments on 
Livy’s using only the shorter form. Three of these examples 
should not be counted, as in 1. 2. 4 we have nec... . solum, 
in 1. 43. 11 the indic. in later texts, and 4. 4. 11 has ne 
....me.... ne. In final clauses Livy uses uf... . nec 
11 times, but ut... . neque 5 times, and in consecutive 
clauses uf... . nec 6 times, but uf... . neque 3 times. In 
the two kinds, uf... . nec is found 17 times, uf... . neque 
8. In final clauses ut... . neque (nec) .... et, etc., are 
found 20 times, but in consecutive clauses 16 times. 


10t.... neve: Οἷς. Imp. Pomp. 69; Sest. 101; Phil. 7. 8; Off. 3. 6. 
2Draeger II?, p. 696, cites two occurrences in Plautus: add Bacch. 648, Trin. 1145, 
each=uf.... neu, and with parataxis, Merc. 1021, Most. 408; cf.also Sall. Cat. 38.5. 


812 Emory B. Lease 


Final 
(a) Ut.... neque 8. 44. 5; 7. 81. 9; 30. 12. 14, 87. 8; 
82. 26.18; (b) ut .... nec 3. 52. 11, 58. 5; 5. 80. 8; 6. 27. 
7; 10. 20. 4; 24. 3. 14; 27. 20. 12; 81. 21. 18; 39. 10. 8; 40. 9. 
5, 28. 5; (c) ut... . neque....et 1. 48. 10, 44. 4; (d) 
uf....nec.... etl. 28. 5. 


Consecutive 


(a) Ut... . neque: 2.11. 8; 9. 20. 8; 36.16. 11; (δ) ut 
.... nec2, 9.8; 8. 36.7; 27. 8.6; 34. 18. 2, 22. 4; 88. 51. 
12; (c)ut.... neque... . e€26.48.3; ut. ...nec.... 
et 5. 51.1; 10. 20. 7; (d) ut .... nec modo... . sed etiam 
1. 2. 4, and ut ....mnec....modo....sedne.... 
quidem, 26. 2. 11. 

In all of the above examples two verbs are used, except in 8. 
58.5: “ut... . sui misererentur nec gentis.” 

83. “Ut....neve.... neve,” “that.... neither... . 
nor,” is extremely rare. Two of the passages cited by Draeger 
IT’, p. 695, Cic. Sest. 65, Caes. B. G., are removed from this cate- 
gory by the latest texts or by the sense, i.e, new=et ne. Both 
Draeger and Schmalz, Synt.’, p. 358, say that this usage is found 


but once in Livy, 30. 87. 4 (τ εὖ) neve .... neve. With an 
additional new, however, another passage is found, 25. 38. 5: 
“Solptones me ambo... . excitant neu se neu... . milites 


. . . neu rem publicam patiar inultam.” It is to be noted that 
in all the passages that have been cited none is found with two 
verbs, such a use, according to Bennett Critique Rec. Subj. 
Theories, p. 29, having never been developed. I have noticed 
but two: Hor. Sat. 2. 5. 89: ‘“‘new desis .... neve .... 
abundes,” and (with same verb repeated) Sen. Ep. 7. 8: ‘‘neve 
similis malis fias . . . . neve inimicus multis.” 

4 Utneque.... neque: a formula used much less freely 
(15.6 per cent.) in a final sentence than the simple wi... . 
neque (64 percent.): Final: 4.11.4; 5.11.9; 22. 12.8; 35. 25. 
8; 44. 46. 7 (4.11.4; 22.12. 8 being with two verbs); Consecu- 
tive, ut nec... . nec: ἃ. 21.4, 26. 5; 5. 6. 8; 41. 20. 2; 43. 3; 
10.18.6; 21.14; 26.1; 21.12.1; 23.4.5; 25. 36.5; 26. 36. 11; 


Livy’s Use or ΝΈΈΟΥΕ AND Neve 818 


28. 4. 8, 12. 4: 88. 82. 10; 45. 25. 4 (-- 16); ut neque.... 
neque, 2. 50. 6, 59. 7; 8. 7. 21, 18. 2; 33. 5. 10, 12 (=6); ut 
neque... . nec 21. 85. 12; 22. 61. 18; 33. 7.2 (=3); ut nec 

. neque 22. 28.14; 40.9.4 (=2). All have only one verb, 
except 45. 25. 4. 


Note also ut... . neque (ter) 8. 38. 10; ut .... nec 
(ter) 34. 88. 7and ut... . nec (4 times) 43. 10. 3. 
5. Ne... . neve: the normal form is found in Livy 31 


times:' 1. 52. 6; 8.17. 12, 30. 5; 4. 30. 18; 8. 34. 6; 21. 40. 5; 
23. 7. 4; 25. 14. 2; 26.1. 10; 27. 38. 6; 30. 37. 6; 33. 30. 6; 
88. 4. 6, 29. 8; 39. 19. 4; 40. 44. 10; 45. 25. 9 (—17) and ne 
quis... . neve 2, 24. 6; 4. 80. 11; 7. 14. 2; 28. 2. 10, 7. 1, 
84. 9; 26. 28. 13; 34. 35. 9, 11; 36. 3.3; 39.14. 8, 17. 3, 18. 
8; 41.8.12(—14). Ofthe abovene .... neve=21,ne.... 
neu =10 (in Caesar ne... . neve=3,ne.... neu=10). 

6. Ne... . neque is an abnormal form of expression and very 
rare. According to the Antibarbarus' II, p. 133, it is not found in 
Cicero, Caesar, or Sallust, but in Nepos. The nearest approach to 


an exception in Cicero is Verr. 4. 60: “egerit ne... . fuisse vi- 
deatur neque se... . instruxisse et ornasse,” and similarly in Fin. 
4.10; in Caesar B. G. 7.75.1: ne....nec.... nec. Nepos, 


cited also by Draeger II’, p. 697, has, however, in the only possible 
passage, 4. 4.6, been changed tone... . neu in Fleckeisen’s edition 
(a change already suggested by Zumpt Lat. Gr.,§535). Ne.... 
neque is found, however, in poetry from Plautus and Terence on. 
Ne.... nec, Livy 4. 4. 11, cited by Draeger and by Kahner II, 
p. 146, hasne....ne....mne.... ne in the latest texts. 
(In 5.33.11 nec=ne .... quidem.) There, therefore, remain 
but 4 occurrences of ne. . . . nec (neque not used) in Livy: 3. 
21.6; 5.3.8; 26. 42. 2; 40. 46. 4. 

7. Ne.... mew... . neu, found only once in Cicero and 
twice in Livy, but not with a correlative force, 29. 24. 3: “monet 
eum ne iura secum new cum p. R..... neu fas... . fallat;” 
84, 1. 8: “tulerat legem .... ne qua... . plus haberet neu 
vestimento ... . uteretur neu vehiculo . . . . veheretur.” 


1 Draeger II3, p. 695, cites only 4 passages in Plautus and cites Merc. for 382. 
As a matter of fact he uses ne... . newlStimes, ne... . neve 7 times, and neu with 
parataxis Merc. 1021; Most. 408. 


814 Emory B. LEASE 


Note also “‘ne....mnew....neu.... neu” 8. 82. 4; 
ine... . neve... . ef ne” 48. 2.12; “ne. ...me.... 
neve” 7.14. 2; “ne... . nevenonsolum .... sed etiam ne” 
87. 53. 6; “ne Veientium neu Sabinorum.... essete?.... 
adessent.”’ 

8. Ne.... nec... . nec (neque not used by Livy) is 
found twice: 2. 32. 10: ‘‘conspirasse ....memanus... . fer- 
rent nec os acciperet . . . . nec dentes conficerent,” and 5. 7. 4: 
‘‘metum inecit ne... . necinurbe .. .. nec in castris posset.” 


O. NE... . AUT... . AUT 


This form of a final clause should also be taken into considera- 
tion. According to the Antibarbarus' II, p. 145, ne... . aut 
. aut is more frequent than wf neve . . . . neve or ne neve 
. neve. The reason for this is that ne... . aut. 
aut gives the key to the clause, showing its character at the start, 
while μέ. . neve... . neve is more artificial. 

The results here given show that in Livy ne aut... . aut is 
found eight times as often as the other two combined. 

a) With two verbs, ne (alone): 24. 29. 6; 25. 11.2; 27. 4. 2; 
29. 21. 11, 82. 22. 8; 84, 84. 5; 35. 29. 9; 37. 52. 7, 54. 9; 40. 
14. 7; 42. 88. 5 (=11); ne quis 24. 9. 10; 88. 88. 16. 

δ) With two nouns, ne (alone): 4. 58. 12; 5. 20. 2; 8. 29. 3; 
22, 49. 11; 27. 26. 8, 30.10; 28. 25.8 (=7); ne quid 30. 12. 20; 
necubit 22. 28. 8. 

c) With two prepositional phrases 27. 48. 8, and 31. 11. 14. 
(Total = 24.) 


. SUMMARY 


Livy’s attitude toward the shorter form of these particles is 
represented by the following proportions: neu by 57.9 per cent., 
seu by 75.2 per cent., ac by 63.4 per cent., nec (in first two books 
of each decade) by 71.5 per cent., and dein by 15 per cent. 

I. CO-ORDINATE CLAUSES 
A. After a Positive: 


with imperative = 2 
! neque with subjunctive = 2 ἡ =11 
nec with subjunctive = 7 
neu with imperative Ξ- 1 =1 


Livy’s Use or Neouvez AND NEVE 


B. After a Negative: 


with subjunctive = 
ME wees neve | with Sap oratives2. Ξὃ 
ne.... neu withimperative-6 =6 
Il. SUBORDINATE CLAUSES 
A. ut. . neve=4 
ut.... neu= 104 =14 
ut . . neque (final)=5 
ut... nee (Gia) t =16 on 
ut . neque (consecutive)= ὃ —9 
ut . « nec (consecutive)= 6 
ut.... neque(nec).... et, etc. (final)=20 
ut.... neque (nec).... et, etc. (consecutive)= 15 
ut neve . neve=1 
ut ne . neque final =2 
ut no. nee (Anal) = = t=6 
ut neque . neque ‘consecutive)=6 
ut nec. . nec (consecutive)= 16 - 91 
ut neque .. nec to neecutivey=2 
ut nec. . neque (consecutive)= 2 
B. ne.... neve=2] -- 8] 
me. . neu= 10 
ne . meve.... neve=0 
ne . neu....neu=2 
ne. . neque =0 
me. . nec=4 
ne . neque . . neque=0 
me....nec.... nec=2 
με. .aut.... aut=24 


CoLLEGE OF THE Crtry or NEw YorRE 


315 


THE CHRONOLOGY OF EARLY ROME 
By Henry A. SANDERS 


It has come to be second nature with most of us to date the 
founding of Rome in 753 Β. Ο., and the first year of the Republic 
in 509 B. 0. We recognize, to be sure, that much of the early 
history is mythical, but to what extent and in what manner that 
may affect the dates is seldom considered. 

How erroneous it is blindly to fasten these dates upon all 
Roman writers and to interpret their years ab urbe condita after 
this generally accepted era, I have shown, taking Livy as an 
example, in a couple of notes in the Classical Journal I, p. 156; 
II, p. 82. But to discuss the whole subject and even to attempt 
to distinguish between the historical and the mythical in the 
chronology of early Rome is to venture on much more dangerous 
ground. Already in 1855 Sir George Cornewall Lewis in his 
Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History, II, p. 556, 
came to the conclusion that, “All historical labor bestowed on the 
early centuries of Rome will, in general, be wasted.” Succeeding 
historians have reaffirmed or even strengthened this assertion, 
and the failure of many attempted chronologies of Rome illustrate 


‘ it. Most radical of all is doubtless Pais Storia di Roma and 


Ancient Legends of Roman History, who absolutely rejects all 
the legends as well as the chronology. 

The time of the founding of Rome was, both to Greeks and 
Romans, a matter of pure guesswork. Its date according to the 
Varronian Era, now interpreted as 753 B. c., was merely one of 
many guesses, and was not universally adopted till much later. 
Under these circumstances it is apparent that the determination 
of this mythical date is as impossible for us as it was for the 
ancients. But the Romans made use of later dates in trying to 
approximate to the time of the founding, and this date, when once 
established by any author, had, in turn, a paramount influence on 
his manner of stating later dates. It is for the light that may 
(CyassioaL Pariovoey ΠῚ, July, 1908) 316 


THE CHRONOLOGY OF EaRLY ROME 817 


be thrown on these later dates and their historical basis, that I 
have attempted this investigation. 

I. In the first class I place those myths which refer to a time 
before the destruction of Troy or which, though timeless, mani- 
festly imply a very ancient origin: 

1) Antiochus of Syracuse (424 B. o.)’ wrote that “Sicelus, an 
exile from Rome, came to the Oenotrians before the emigration 
of a portion of them to Sicily” (Dion. Hal. i. 73. 4). 

2) Antigonus, in the Historia Italica (200 B. 0.), said that 
‘‘Rhomus, sprung from Jupiter, founded a city on the Palatine, 
and gave his name to it” (Festus, p. 266 M). 

3) Festus, p. 266 M, cites from a Historia Cumana that “colo- 
nists from Athens, Sicyon, and Thespiae, called Aborigines from 
their wanderings, first settled on the Palatine and called their city 
Valentia, a name which was changed to Rhome on the arrival of 
Evander, Aeneas, and many Greek-speaking followers” (Servius 
ad Aen. i. 273 refers this to [L.| Ateius | Praetextatus}). 

4) Plutarch Rom. 1 states on unknown authority that ‘‘the 
Pelasgians founded the city and called it Rhome from their 
strength.” 

5) Plutarch Rom. 2 names Rome, daughter of Italus and 
Lucaria, the founder (cf. Syncellus I, p. 363 in Corp. Scrip. 
Hist. Byz.). 

6) Dionysius of Halicarnassus i. 72. 6 and Plutarch Rom. 2 
had found the statement that Rome was founded and named by 
an ancient Latin hero, Romis or Romus, son of Italus. 

II. In the second class I place those myths, which make the 
founding of Rome the direct result of the capture of Troy: 

1) Heraclides Lembus (150 B.c.) wrote that “Greeks, return- 
ing from Troy, were driven to the Tiber by a storm and settled 
there, when a captive girl named Rhome set fire to their ships. 
The city prospered and was named Rome in honor of the girl” 
(Festus, p. 269 M, Solinus i. 2, Servius ad Aen. i. 273). 

2) Aristotle (+ 322 B. c.) gives the same without naming 
Rome (Dion. Hal. i. 72. 3). 

3) Plutarch Rom. 1 applies this story to wandering Trojans. 


1QOnly those authors are dated whose time seems reasonably certain. 


318 Henry A. SANDERS 


4) The writer, probably Hellanicus, of the History of the 
Priestesses of Argos (400 B. 0.) combined the two versions, mak- 
ing Ulysses and Aeneas the leaders of the expedition. Cf. also 
Damastes of Sigeum (400 B. oc.) for the same (Dion. Hal. 
i. 72. 2). 

5) Clinias related that ‘Rome, daughter of Telemachus, mar- 
ried Aeneas and gave her name to the city” (Servius ad Aen. 
i, 273, cf. Plutarch Rom. 2). 

6) Cephalon of Gergithes (200 B.c.) wrote that ‘Aeneas 
founded Rome and named it from a companion” (Festus, p. 266). 

7) Sallust Cat. 6 claimed to have heard an old story that 
‘Aeneas with Trojans and Aborigines founded Rome” (cf. Dion. 
Hal. i. 72. 1). 

IIT. In the third class I place those writers who had Rome 
founded by a descendant of Aeneas or other Trojan in the second 
or third generation after Troy. The variations are so slight, I 
merely enumerate authorities: 

1) Dionysius of Chalcis (250 B. o.); cf. Dion. Hal. i. 72. 6. 

2) Demagoras, Agathyllus, and Cephalon of Gergithes (200 
B. 0.); cf. Dion. Hal. i. 72. 1; Syncellus i. 868. 

8) Eratosthenes (195 8. 0.); cf. Servius ad Aen. i. 273. 

4) Alcimus in the Italica,; cf. Festus, p. 266. 

5) Agathocles of Cyzicus (250 B. c.), two versions; cf. Festus, 
_p. 269; Solinus i. 8. 

6) Apollodorus in Euxenide (250 B.c.); cf. Festus, p. 266. 

7) Naevius, Ennius, and other Romans; cf. Servius ad Aen. 
i. 273; vi. 777; Dion. Hal. i. 73. 2. 

8) Callias (300 B. c.) made Romulus the son of Rome, a 
Trojan woman, and of Latinus; cf. Dion. Hal. i. 72. 5; Festus, 
p- 269; Syncellus i. 363. 

9) Plutarch Rom. 2 and Dionysius of Halicarnassus i. 73 have 
several other versions making a son of Aeneas the founder; cf. 
also Etymologicon Magnum s. v. Ῥώμη. 

IV. In the fourth class I place the myths, which represent 
Rome as founded by a descendant of Ulysses or some other Greek, 
and in the second or third generation after Troy. The forms vary 
little. The authorities are as follows: 


THE CHRONOLOGY OF EARLY ROME 319 


1) Xenagoras; cf. Dion. Hal. i. 72. 5; Stephanus Byz. s. v. 
“Avrea and ’Apdda. 

2) Clinias; cf. Festus, p. 269; Servius ad Aen. i. 273; Plu- 
tarch Rom. 2. 

3) An unknown author in Plutarch Rom. i. 

4) An unknown author in Servius ad Aen. i. 273. 

V. In the fifth class belong the myths, which make Rome a 
colony of Alba Longa. The only important variations are as to 
dates, which I will give with authorities: 

1) Timaeus (300 B. 0.) dates Rome in the thirty-eighth year 
before the first Olympiad = 814 B. ©.,' contemporaneous with 
Carthage; cf. Dion. Hal. i. 74. 1. 

2) The date Olympiad 1, 1,— 776 8. c. is also found; cf. Syn- 
cellus 1. 365, who cites Laas (= Kallias?) and also wrongly 
Timaeus for this date. 

8) Q. Fabius Pictor (190 B. o.), in Olympiad 8, 1 = 748 8. ο.; 
cf. Dion. Hal. i. 74. 1; Solinus i. 27. 

4) L. Cincius Alimentus (190 B. c.), in Olympiad 12, 4--- 729 
B. Ο.; cf. Dion. Hal. i. 74. 1; Solinus i. 27. 

5) Eratosthenes (195 Β. o.), Apollodorus (143 Β. o.), Lutatius 
(100 B. o.), Nepos (cf. Solinus i. 27), Polybius (cf. Dion. Hal. i. 
74. 3), Cicero De re pub. ii. 10, in Olympiad 7, 2 = 751 or 750 
B. C. 

6) Cato (170 3B. c.) places date 432 years after Troy = 752 
(751) 8. ο. ;" cf. Dion. Hal. i. 74. 2; also Eusebius, a. Abr. 1264 = 
Olym. 7, 1. 

7) Eusebius a. Abr. 1263 gives Olympiad 6, 4 = 753 or 752 
B. O. 

8) Syncellus i. 361 gives Olympiad 7, 4 = 749 B. c. 

9) Tarutius, Atticus, Varro give Olympiad 6, 3 = 753 B. c.;° 
cf. Censorinus De die natali 21. 5; Solinus i. 27. 


1Trieber Hermes XXVII, p. 334, shows-that 814 not 813 s. co. is the right inter- 
pretation. 
3Cf. ibid.; the discussion in Dionysius shows that 752 not 761 B. c. is meant. 


δ The question whether the comparative or actual Olympiad year was given in the 
various historians isa perplexing one. The Olympiad year was from July to July. 
The founding of Rome occurred traditionally on April 21. Thus the Olympiad years 
and the years a. u. c. coincided during ten months, and it was natural in dating Roman 
events to give the comparative Olympiad year. Therefore, if such Olympiad dates be 


820 Henry A. SANDERS 


We may now sum up the results of our classification and so 
eliminate worthless material. Of the five classes of foundation 
myths, the second, third, and fourth are plainly under the influence 
of the Homeric tradition, and so can teach us only that, when the 
western Greeks became curious about the origin of Rome, the in- 
fluence of the Homeric poems was the chief literary one among 
them. The origin through Greek heroes seems to have been at 
least as early as the story of the Trojan origin, and the two myths 
were very early combined. Furthermore there was during that 
period no widely known native myth concerning Rome’s founda- 
tion, though its origin confessedly antedated tradition. 

The myths of the first class indicate the same condition in even 
stronger terms. To be exact, from the fifth century B. c. on, the 
western Greeks had no definite knowledge regarding the date of 
Rome, though they thought of it as antedating the earliest of their 
own colonies, some of which belonged to the eighth century. It is 
a fair assumption, therefore, that Rome was older than the tradi- 
tional date (753 B. c.) rather than younger, a conclusion confirmed 
by prehistoric graves found within the limits of the city. It 
remains for us to consider the myth which interposed the Alban 
kings between Troy and Rome. This was generally combined 
with dates ranging from 814 to 729 B. co. Not only is it younger 
than the other classes of myths, but it appears regularly as a com- 
bined Trojan-Alban myth. It is possible, though not probable, 
that a popular myth once existed at Rome, independent of the 
Trojan myth and stating merely that Rome was a colony of Alba; 
but it seems more likely that the growth of the Trojan myth, 
when its chronological discrepancies had been noted, was guided 
or influenced by the few public rites and customs, pointing to a 
former religious or political supremacy of Alba and Lavinium. 

Such being the case it is evident, as Mommsen dm. Chron., 
pp. 152-54, has pointed out, that these dates are pure combina- 


interpreted exactly, they would be one year late for events between April 21 and July 1; 
cf. Mommsen Rém. Chron., ἡ. 135, ἃ. Yet when we come to the later and more exact 
writers, there were doubtless many cases of correct dating. The earlier historians and 
the Greeks regularly used the comparative date ; thus in Fabius Pictor Olym. 8, 1 = 748 
not 747 5. c. On the other hand there can be no doubt that in the exact reckonings of 
the astrologer Tarutius and of Varro Olym. 6, 3= 753 not 754 B. c. 


THE CHRONOLOGY OF EARLY RomME 321 


tions, either being reckoned after the fall of Troy or back from 
the establishment of the republic. As regards fixing even an 
approximate date for the founding these dates are absolutely worth- 
less, but they do prove the presence of the line of Alban kings in 
the traditional history of Rome long before the time of Sulla, 
when Mommsen Rdém. Chron., p. 156, claimed that they first 
appeared.’ 

It is certain that the earliest lists of Alban kings did not give 
the number of years of each reign, but the length of the whole 
period could, nevertheless, be determined by the regular method 
of the early chronologists of reckoning three generations to the 
century. Yet Livy i. 3, gives 15 Alban kings (—14 generations) 
besides Aeneas, a period far too long to agree with the accepted 
eras of Troy and Rome, though it agrees fairly well with the date 
of Troy’s fall according to Timaeus and Clitarchus, viz., 1234 8. ©. ; 
ef. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21.189. The 484 intervening years 
allow for 14 generations with an ample balance for Aeneas and 
Numitor. - 

Diodorus vii. 3a, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus i. 70 ff. also 
give 15 kings besides Aeneas, though only 18 generations. The 
lengths of the individual reigns are given shortened to agree with 
the accepted eras. 

It is manifest that these lists do not represent the original 
form; an older one must have given just 13 generations from Troy 
to Rome: 1183—750—433—13 X334. It is true that we can 
reduce the 16 names of Diodorus and Dionysius to 13 generations 
by omitting Aeneas, since Ascanius was born at Troy, and also 
omitting one each from the pairs of brothers Remulus and 
Agrippa,’ Amulius and Numitor. Such additions and interpre- 
tations can hardly have appeared in the original list, in which the | 
number of kings and generations doubtless agreed. Thus in Ovid 
-Fasti iv. 41 ff. there are but 13 kings besides Aeneas’ and in the 
Metamorphoses xiv. 609 ff.‘ only 13 including Aeneas. The same 


1Trieber Hermes XXIX, p. 124 agrees that their names were not older than 
Alexander Polyhistor (80 8. c.). 

2Or Ascanius and Silvius. 

3Cf. also Servius ad Aen. vi. 767, that Numitor was the thirteenth Alban king. 

4The name Alba is commonly corrected into the text, making 14. 


822 Henry A. SANDERS 


number appears also in Appian Bas. i. 1. Both the interval of 
433 years and the 13 kings between Troy and Rome must have 
been quite commonly accepted. 

In Timaeus the period was 420 years, for he placed the found- 
ing of Rome in 814 B.c., while the correct interpretation of 
Clemens Alex. Sfrom. i. 21. 189, refers the date 1234 Bs. o.' for 
Troy’s fall to Timaeus. But 420 years allows for 12 generations 
and 20 years to spare, a period that can be covered by giving 10 
years to the wanderings (cf. Ulysses) and 8 to the rule of Aeneas, 
as in the late writer Thrasyllus, and placing the founding of 
Rome in the second year of Numitor. The period of 420 years 
between Troy and Rome according to Timaeus makes it certain 
that he admitted the rule of Alban kings, probably 12 in number. 
There must also have been a shorter list of Alban kings to agree 
with the 300 years’ rule according to Virgil Aen. i. 272 ff. and 
Justinus xliii. 1.13. This presupposes a list of 9 Alban kings, 
which can be obtained from Cassius Dio, frg. 4 (Zonaras 7.1) by 
excluding both Aeneas and Numitor. It is possible that this 
represents an ancient form of the myth, as Trieber Hermes XXIX, 
Ρ. 125, and Pais Storia di Roma II. i, p. 187, suppose, but it is 
quite as likely that both the 9 kings and the 300 years represent 
a late adaptation to the magic number three. 

It is hardly necessary to discuss the relation of the other dates 
of Troy and Rome. As Timaeus, who dated Rome the earliest of 
those giving definite dates, plainly allows for the period of Alban 
kings, the other early historians, both Greek and Roman, must 
have done the same, as soon as they attempted to give dates to the 


10nger Hermes XXXV, p. 24, and Trieber Hermes XXVII, p. 382, make the date of 
Troy 1334 8. c., according to Timaeus. They seem to have been led astray by the 
incomplete citation of the passage in Maller F. H. G. The absurdity of this reckon- 
ing is evident from the fact, that, if they interpreted the whole sentence of Clemens in 
the same fashion, they would find that Troy fell in 1287 Β. c., according to Eratoethenes 
instead of 1183 B. o., the accepted date, based on another passage in the same chapter 
of Olemens. Besides, Clemens assigns the date 1334 s. oc. for the fall of Troy to Duris 
only a few lines farther on. Censorinus De die nat. 21. 3 cites Timaeus for the fall 
of Troy in 1198 B. c., but this is certainly due either to an interchange of names or an 
omission. This is the date given by Thrasyllus; cf. Olemens Strom. i. 21. 137. 
Mommsen Hém. Chron., p. 136, erred in the other direction by assuming that Timaeus 
(frg. 23 Maller) represented Aeneas as contemporary with Dido. The fragment in 
question leaves no place for Aeneas in the myth of Dido, who kills herself to escape 
marriage with Iarbas. 


THe CHRONOLOGY OF Earty Rome 823 


period. This renders it fairly certain that, from the fourth century 
on, the Alban kings had a place in the history of Rome. Pais 
op. cit. I. i, pp. 201 and 224, holds that the Alban myth arose soon 
after the subjugation of Latium (340-338 B. 0.) and from political 
reasons. ΑΒ regards the time of origin he must be about right, 
but both the chronology and the presence of the Greek names in 
the list indicate a Greek origin rather than a native Latin one. 

Far more frequently the traditional seven kings of Rome were 
used to date the city, by reckoning back from the establishment of 
the Republic. Mommsen Rém. Chron., pp. 134 f., has explained 
the variations in the dates of the founding by a very free use of the 
interregnum year after Romulus, which he made into two years 
and twice added to the reign of Numa, though still retaining it as 
an interregnum year, a rather forced explanation even though the 
length of Numa’s reign is variously given as 39, 41, or 43 years.’ 
Mommeen thus reached the conclusion that the different dates of 
founding were due merely to varying lengths of royal rule and 
pointed to a single accepted date for the establishment of the 
Republic. He took no account of such divergent dates as those 
of Cincius Alimentus, whom he considered an antiquarian of the 
Augustan age, or of Timaeus or Ennius. Moreover, the inference 
which he drew from this and from a similar reduction to unity of 
the many apparent variations in the consular lists, as given in the 
Fasti and in the various historians, has been fatal to progress in 
investigations into the chronology of Rome. Briefly stated, his 
position is (op. cit., p. 133) that “the various Fasti and historians 
show practically the same numbers and names of consuls for the 
Republic, thus pointing to the existence before the literary period 
of a single, well-established tradition, an officially corrected edition 
of the Fasti; but instead of the historical trustworthiness of the 
lists and dates being assured thereby, in fact these would be much 
more certain, if there were two or more original versions, now 
agreeing, now disagreeing.” 

The unanimity discovered by Mommsen seemed to him to prove 
that all divergent forms and dates had been corrected and unified 


1Unger Rh. Mus. XXXV, p. 11, sees the fallacy of this explanation, but his own 
method of inserting interregnum years after four of the kings is even worse. 


324 Henry A. SANDERS 


in the pontifical tablets before the literary period. In other words, 
the pontiffs possessed a single, authoritative consular list, couched 
in literary form and accommodated to the prevalent chronological 
ideas, even before the time of Fabius. With the exception of 
Pais op. cit., p 226,’ who goes to the other extreme by refusing all 
credence to the early consular lists because of their divergences 
and inconsistencies, this view of Mommsen’s has in general been 
held down to the present, notably by Unger op. cit., though the 
facts he gathered were against it. Yet this interpretation demands 
that the seven kings of Rome be reckoned in round numbers at 
240 years, even in the earliest version, instead of at the natural 
three per century; neither does it explain all the different found- 
ing dates, and, as above stated, sadly overworks the interregnum 
year after Romulus. Not only must we explain the increase in 
the regal period from 233 to 240 years, but we cannot lightly 
deny authority to 729 B. Ο. as the date of founding according to 
Cincius Alimentus. Dionysius surely knew whether he was using 
a historian or a contemporary antiquarian, so that this date must 
also be explained.’ 

In spite of the length of time it has stood, the theory of 
Mommeen rests on a most insecure footing. Yet on this hangs all 
the learned investigation, reaching down to the present, which has 
attempted to reconstruct and date the literary version, or collection 
of extracts of the pontifical tablets, supposed to be the only 
original source of all the early annalists. 

That there are variations in the Roman consular lists is 
unquestioned (cf. CIL I, Fasti consulares). Mommsen even 
did not try to correct them out of the texts, but rather belittled 
them and asserted that they were of late origin. So far is this 
from being true, that the discrepancies are both decided and 
numerous, and go back to the earliest sources. And besides, 
instead of having arisen through careless omissions, judging from 
internal evidence, the briefest list seems to be the oldest and most 
trustworthy. 

Let us turn our attention first to Livy. As I pointed out in the 
Classical Journal ‘I, p. 156, he omits the four dictatorial years, 


10f. Anc. Leg. of Rom. Hist., pp. 6 ff. 2Thus Unger op. cit., p. 25. 


Tre CHRONOLOGY OF EarLy Rome 325 


421, 430, 445, 453 a.v.c., three consular years, 247, 264, and 265 
A.U.C., and one military tribune year, 378 A.v.©., a total of eight. 
That should have given him the year 501 B. c. for the founding of 
the Republic, and doubtless one of his sources had that date, 
though Livy himself reckons in his chronology four of the years 
he, in fact, omits, and besides adds an extra decemviral year, so as 
to arrive at 506 B. oO. for the establishment of the Republic. It 
seems clear that, of the sources of Livy, one, which we may style 
C, omitted eight years from the full consular Fasti, while another, 
which I call D, omitted four. It is not determinable which, if 
either, of these sources inserted the extra decemviral year. 

But this is not the worst. Even the above-mentioned more 
abbreviated consular list was somewhat padded. If we turn to 
Livy vi. 35. 10, we learn that owing to dissentions between plebe- 
ians and patricians, there were no curule magistrates for five suc- 
cessive years. This statement is on its face suspicious, yes impos- 
sible. Now turning to Diodorus xv. 75, who regularly represents 
an earlier source than Livy, we find that the period of anarchy is 
confined to a single year.’ Furthermore, Diodorus omits the four 
decemviral years as does Livy (one falls in a lacuna) and likewise 
one military tribune year, 387 a.v.0.; this is not the same one as 
in Livy, but it falls in the same period, so that the chronological 
balance was preserved. The omissions of Livy or an equivalent 
all occur in Diodorus and more besides. So we have a right to 
assume that Diodorus omitted the three consular years, 247, 264, 
265 a.u.c., which fall in a lacuna. This is all the more certain as 
Diodorus also omits the year 272 a.v.c., making here also a group 
of four years omitted. 

This makes a total of 13 years omitted by Diodorus. Nor is 
this all; between books xii and xiii he omits five years, 831 to 335 
A. U. 0. inclusive, though he later reinserts five years by repeating 

1Mommsen Hermes XIII, pp. 806 and 553, refers the.one year of anarchy to 
Polybius and Fabius, holding that the four years as also the four decemviral years were 
inserted to make up for omitted interregna, etc. Unger Bayer. Akad. XV (1879), 
pp. 88 ff., has overthrown this view by showing that if much time was lost at the begin- 
ning of the year through interregna, the consular year was eo much shorter. The slight 
variations in the length of the consular years owing to priestly influence on the calen- 


dar, abdications, dictatorships overrunning the consular years, interregna, etc., have 
had no effect that can be reckoned. 


826 Henry A. SANDERS 


xv. 2—xv. 20, the five years just given in the passage xiv. 97 to xiv. 
110. These five sets of names are plainly from different sources 
in the two passages, as almost all the names in the second set 
differ somewhat in form from the first set. It is also noteworthy, 
that the Roman events are joined to the first set, leaving the sec- 
ond set without Roman historical allusions. The conclusion is 
unavoidable, that the Roman chronology of Diodorus was influ- 
enced by two sources. The one, which we may style Source A, 
omitted 18 years from the most complete Fasti, the other, Source 
B, omitted 18. 

What cause can there have been for such extensive omissions 
or insertions? We may note first, that the military tribune year, 
378 a.U.0., omitted by Livy and his sources, was the year before 
the period of anarchy, while the military tribune year, 387 αὖ... 
omitted by Diodorus and his sources, was the last one in the same 
group of military tribune years. The conclusion is obvious; not 
even the one year of anarchy according to Diodorus was in the 
original consular lists, but was manufactured out of some refer- 
ence to a brief period of anarchy, and when it became a full year, 
it crowded out a military tribune year near it, so as to keep in 
accord with accepted chronology. That we find two separate 
years omitted in the different sources proves that two independent 
authors corrected the list to agree with the accepted chronology. 

The omission of five successive years in Source A of Diodorus 
seems to have been later than this and to have been arbitrarily 
made to balance a previous insertion of the five anarchy years. 

Source C of Livy is closely related to Source B of Diodorus, 
having inserted merely one consular and four anarchy years addi- 
tional. The two must be referred back to a common source, as X, 
which lacked four consular years between 247 and 272 a.v.c., the 
whole five years of anarchy, and the four decemviral years. We 
have just shown how the one anarchy year crept in by crowding 
out a military tribune year. In like manner this one year of 
anarchy must have grown to five from chronological reasons, viz., 
to keep pace chronologically with some other consular list 
which had inserted the four extra-consular years or the four extra- 
decemviral years. 


THE CHRONOLOGY OF EARLY ROME 327 


Let us see if we can determine the age and author of any of 
these sources or consular lists. For Sources X and B the date of 
establishment of the Republic was 509—13—496 Β. οἷ I have 
noted above that the seven kings must originally have been 
reckoned at 334 years each, or at a total of 233 years. Nowa 
historian, who was earnest and exact enough to search out a con- 
sular list containing the least number of interpolations, would 
surely have reckoned the seven traditional kings as seven genera- 
tions at a total of 233 years, and not accepted the pure inventions, 
which gave a definite length to each reign. | 

If, however, we add these 233 royal years to 496 B. 0. of 
Sources X and B, we get 729 Β. c. for the founding of the city, 
precisely the date given by Cincius Alimentus,’ which Mommsen 
tried to call in question. Cincius was, therefore, either Source B 
or X. We have also the right to infer that Cincius and his 
sources mentioned the Alban kings, for the 420 years between 
729 Β.0. and 1149 B.c., the date of Troy’s fall according to 
Ephorus (Clemens Sfrom. i. 21. 139), is the same as Timaeus and 
Thrasyllus gave to the Alban period. 

This whole chronology is so simple and honest, that the ques- 
tion may well be asked, why Fabius Pictor and all his followers 
gave a different one. The answer cannot be doubtful. The 
variations in the consular list, the changes, interpolations, and 
chronological adjustments go back to the pontifical and other lists, 
even before the time of Fabius. The variations in these current 
lists, extracted from priestly or official sources, by comparison 
brought about the increase of the regal period from 233 to 240 
and perhaps to 244 years, in an attempt to preserve approximately 
some accepted date for the founding. Now in a partial list of the 
kings, Cicero De re pub. ii. 10 ff., indicates a total of 238 years 
for royal rule, though he expressly states a total of 240 years, 
probably by including a two-year interregnum after Romulus; 
cf. Mommsen Rém. Chron., p. 188. We should therefore accept 


1Unger Rh, Mus. XXXV, p. 2, by a different reckoning gets 498 5. Ο. as the true 
date. 

2The adjusting of later dates, as the capture of Rome by the Gauls, to this chronol- 
ogy of Cincius presents some interesting results, which I must, however, reserve for 
another paper. 


828 Henry A. SANDERS 


238 years as the second stage in the increase of the regal period. 
But we have seen that Sources A and B differed from each other 
by five years, as also Sources B and C. Then Source A must 
have placed the establishment of the Republic in 491 B.o., i. e., 
509-18; but if that author gave 729 B.o. as the founding date, 
he would have 238 years in the regal period. 

Source C implies the establishment of the Republic in 501 B. o. 
(509-8), Source D in 505 Β. ο., but none of these can be defi- 
nitely connected with the briefer period of royal rule and the 
customary dates of founding. Yet they may well have had some 
influence on the growth of the regal period. Thus 505+ 243= 
748 B.O., an accepted date for the founding and a common era 
for the kings. 

After a regal period of 238 years had been obtained, the next 
inventions were the interregnum year and two years after Romulus 
(100 senators at five days each gives 500 days), thus giving 239 
and 240 years respectively; these two were in turn increased by 
four years each (to 243 and 244) by a confusion arising out of 
the use or omission of one of the groups of four interpolated years. 

It is hardly worth while to show how all the dates of founding 
grew out of this confusion. The important fact is that the con- 
fusion in the consular list and in the regal period existed before 
200 B. Ο. and had not been entirely eradicated in the Augustan Age. 

We may also surmise that not even the tradition of seven kings 
was always unquestioned. Remus at times seems more important — 
than Romulus and Tatius is made a ruler with Romulus, if not 
alone. Doubtless by inserting one or the other of these, Laas 
(Kallias?) secured eight kings, so as to agree with the founding 
in the first Olympiad’: 8 X334—267, and 267+509=776 B. o., 
i.e., Olym. 1,1. Timaeus, however, must have inserted both extra 
kings, making a total of nine, and padded the consular list by an 
extra four years in order to agree with the founding date 814 B.o., 
for 510 B. o. seems the earliest date for the Republic indicated 
elsewhere.’ 

To sum up, I find that there were two or more consular lists 


10f. p. 319 above. 
2Another possibility for Timaeus is eight kings at 40 years, i. e., 320 years; for 
814—820=494, a reasonable date for the founding of the Republic. 


THe CHRONOLOGY OF EABLY ROME 329 


existent in Rome long before 200 8.0. One at least of these 
seems to have been interpolated early, perhaps before 300 8. ο.; 
cf. Timaeus and Kallias. It cannot be due to chance that these 
interpolations in the different Fasti seem to go mostly by fours. 
Doubtless the first four, the consuls 247, 264, 265, and 272 a. v. o., 
were introduced through family influence or carelessness, but the 
other insertions were mostly due to the existence of two or more 
varying lists, mutually influencing each other. This is the natural 
explanation for the introduction of the four dictatorial years and 
for the increase of the period of anarchy from one to five years. 

According to the above we may date the establishment of the 
Republic in Rome between 510 and 491 B. Ο., or more exactly, as 
some of the interpolations and omissions seem certain, between 
500 and 496 B. o. with the preference for the later date. 

Cincius, who requires the date 496 B.c., must have used a 
different consular list from Fabius, whose list had to reach back 
to 508 or 509 B. Ο. in order to get 748 B. 0. for the founding, as 
he seems to have assigned but 239’ or 240 years to the kings. 
Polybius iii. 22, as also Cato and the Fasti, gave 243 years to the 
regal period, hence 509 B. o. for the Republic. 

We know that Polybius used the pontifical tablets to determine 
the date of Rome (cf. Dion. Hal. i. 74.3); therefore both Cato 
and Fabius, who require the same date for the Republic, used them 
also. Cincius surely had a different source, perhaps the brs lintet; 
but there may well have been, and probably were, other priestly 
or official Fasti, as well as numerous consular lists extracted from 
these and in the hands of the public.” Furthermore, the confusion 
in the lists would arise more easily if there were several to influ- 
ence each other, than if there were only two. There were, doubt- 
less, consular lists current pointing toward many of the dates from 
514 to 491 B. o. for the establishment of the Republic. 

In conclusion let me emphasize once more, that the proof that 
there were parallel Roman consular lists as early as the third or 
fourth century B. 0. is the strongest proof of the general accuracy 
and historical reliability of that list. 

University OF MICHIGAN 

10f. Unger Rh. Mus. XXXV, p. 4. 20f. Dion. Hal. i. 78. 1, 74. δ; Livy iv. 7. 10. 


NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 


VARIA 
I 

Alciphron ii. 7.2. (Schepers). πέπαυσο, Κέκροψ ἄθλιε, καὶ rpérov κατὰ 
σεαυτόν, ὦ πρέσβυ, μή σε λαβοῦσα κακόν τι ἐργάσωμαι. 

The words are addressed by a girl to a decrepit wooer. Κέκροψ is 
doubtless explained as equivalent to “ancient,” “antediluvian,” “old 
fogy.” With this implication Κρόνος is found in Ar. Clouds 929, cf. 1070, 
Wasps 1480; so also Ἰαπετός in Clouds 998, Plato Symp. 195 B, Κόδρος, 
Com. Adesp. 1044. I have not seen Kéxpoy in this sense, and Alciphron 
is not likely to have originated the locution, though it would sound nat- 
ural enough in one of the comedians. κέρκοψ is the reading of several 
good MSS, and this suggests that xépxwy should be substituted for the 
common reading Kéxpoy. This change does away with the tautologous 
parallel Κέκροψ ἄθλιε. . . . ὦ πρέσβυ which prompted Hercher to delete 
the latter phrase. For xépxwy asa term of vituperation, see Aeschin. ii. 40. 

It may be remarked that Κέκροψ is wrongly written for κέρκωψ in other 
MSS, as, for example, in Hesych. s. v. and Apollod. ii.6 (Wagner). In 
Ar. Birds 1407 Palmer and van Leeuwen would write Κερκωπίδα for Kexpo- 
aida, of all manuscripts. 


II 


Artemidorus Onirocr. ii. 25 (p. 119 Hercher). πίτυς καὶ στρόβιλος vav- 
κλήροις μὲν καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ναντιλλομένοις πρὸς ναῦν εἰσὶ Anmréu διὰ τὴν κατασκευὴν 
τῶν νεῶν καὶ τὴν πίσσαν καὶ τὴν ῥητίνην τὴν ἀπὸ τούτων τῶν δένδρων γινομένην. 
τοῖς δὲ ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἀηδίας καὶ φυγῆς εἰσὶ σημαντικαὶ διὰ τὸ φιλέρημον. 

Of the two MSS that Hercher considered to be of supreme importance 
in constituting the text, V has φιλέρημον, L φιλήρεμον. The latter reading, 
though faulty, points the way to the correct one, which I believe to have 
been φιλήνεμον. Though inoffensive at first sight, φιλέρημον is open to 
objections. In the first place, the phrase διὰ τὸ φιλέρημον ought to men- 
tion some tolerably familiar characteristic of the pine and fir. But φιλέρη 
pos is certainly no such familiar characteristic. This adjective is on the 
whole quite rare. It is applied to Hecate in an Orphic hymn (1. 4), to 
Adonis, again in an Orphic hymn (56. 2), to Pan once in Artemidorus 
(iv. 72, p. 246 H.), and once in Suidas, 8. v. Πάν, to the cicada in Anth. 
Pal. ix. 373, and once in the Anthology (v. 8) it is used with the noun 
διαζυγά. It does not occur elsewhere with πίτυς or any other tree-name. 

330 


ΝΟΤΕΒ AND DISCUSSIONS 831 


Besides, the conifers are not more φιλέρημοι than other forest trees. 
It is true that in bucolic and post-bucolic literature the pine becomes a 
sort of conventional background for pastoral scenes; so in Theocritus 
(i. 184, iii. 88, v.49), in the Palatine Anthology (vi. 334 and vii. 703), and 
often in Longus. In an epigram of the Planudean Appendix (230) the 
pine is called woyeia. It is this convention, in part, that makes [irvs, 
the pine-nymph, a mistress of Pan, the herdsman’s god, in the later lit- 
erary mythologizing (Luc. ἢ. Ὁ. 22. 4, Longus i. 27, ii. 7). Yet all this 
does not fully account for the epithet φιλέρημος in the passage cited from 
Artemidorus, especially when one considers that the tree’s love for lonely 
places has not for the Greek reader the same appropriateness as an omen 
of exile that such an allusion would have for us, The banished Greek 
did not flee to desert places, but rather to a foreign city, where he might 
receive the protection of some patron, or eke out a living by work. 

Now φιλήνεμος is also a rare word, occurring, I think, only four times 
in the extant literature. In two of these four places it is applied to the 
stone-pine. One of them is in the letter of Alciphron (ii. 9 Schepers), 
where a rustic tells how he sat at noon under a wind-loving pine and 
charmed his cattle by the music of his pipes. The conventional bucolic 
motive is to be noted. The other isin the Symposiaca of Plutarch (676 A), 
where the banqueters discuss the question why the stone-pine is sacred 
to Poseidon. They agree that it is not because it grows by the shore, nor 
because it is wind-loving like the sea (ὅτι φιλήνεμός ἐστιν ὥσπερ ἡ θάλασσα), 
for this also, Plutarch remarks, is stated by some writers, but rather 
because of its connection with ship-building; καὶ yap αὕτη (i. 6. ἡ πίτυς) 
καὶ τὰ ἀδελφὰ δένδρα, πεῦκαι καὶ στρόβιλοι, τῶν re ξύλων παρέχει τὰ πλοϊμώτατα, 
πίττης τε καὶ ῥητίνης ἀλοιφήν, ἧς ἄνευ τῶν συμπαγέντων ὄφελος οὐδὲν ἐν τῇ 
θαλάττῃ. 

Two features of this passage deserve particular attention. First, the 
mention of the use of pine timber and pitch and rosin in ship building is 
quite enough like the corresponding passage in Artemidorus to justify 
the conjecture that the dream-interpreter had Plutarch’s words in mind. 

If so, the restoration of φιλήνεμον in Artemidorus is placed beyond question. 
᾿ The second important feature of the passage is that it treats φιλήνεμος as 
an at least fairly well-known epithet of the pine—an epithet made 
familiar, it may be, by poetic usage. One might even try to recover from 
the words of Plutarch a hidden verse-tag, such as πίτυς re φιλήνεμος ὥστε 
θάλασσα. 

But although the word φιλήνεμος is extremely rare, there is ample 
proof that to the later Greeks at least the pine was the wind-loving tree 
κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. This convention begins, apparently, with the bucolic poets, 
who dwell lovingly upon the musical moaning of the pine in the winds. 
So Theocritus in the opening lines of the first idy], Moschus v. 7, 8, and in 
three epigrams of pastoral coloring in the Appendix Planudea (12, 13, 227). 


882 Norres AND DISCUSSIONS 


Latin parallels are quoted in the commentary of Fritzsche-Hiller on the 
Theocritean passage. This thought of the musical pine also played its 
part in the development of the story of Pan and Pitys; cf. Preller 
Mythologie‘, p. 740. 

Another turn is given to the convention of the wind-loving tree in a 
group of five epigrams in the ninth book of the Palatine Anthology (30, 
81, 105, 131, 876). The thought — evidently a school-theme — is the same 
in all. A stone-pine, broken or uprooted by the wind, rebukes a builder 
for his foolhardiness in daring to make a ship of that which is the special 
victim of the winds and hurricanes. The word φιλήνεμος is not used, but 
in every case the thought of the pine as the wind-tossed tree is present. 

But—returning to our passage in Artemidorus— what has the wind- 
loving character of the pine to do with exile and flight? The dream- 
interpreter gives the clue himself in a passage which describes the 
significance of dreams about winds for those who expect absent friends 
(ii. 80, p. 188 H.): det δὲ rots ἀποδήμους προσδοκῶσιν of ἀπὸ τῶν κλιμάτων 
ἐκείνων, οὗ εἰσὶν of ἀπόδημοι, πνέοντές dow ἀγαθοί, of δὲ ἐναντίοι κατέχουσι τοὺς 


φιλήνεμον, then, may be offered with some confidence as a substitute 
for Hercher’s text. 


ΠῚ 

Suidas ii. 1. 1234 (Bernhardy) ὀφιόπους γυνή: ἕρπουσα. 

In place οὗ the wholly inadequate ἔρπουσα some identification of this 
serpent-footed woman is to be expected. This may be obtained by read- 
ing ἔμπουσα, changing the breathing and one letter. 

It must be admitted that the epithet ὀφιόπους does not tally with the 
most familiar description of the hobgoblin Empusa, Ar. Frogs 288-95, 
where we find in the last two lines 

Δι. καὶ σκέλος χαλκοῦν ἔχει; 
Hla. νὴ τὸν Ποσειδῶ, καὶ βολίτινον θάτερον. 
This last characteristic is evidently a figment οὗ Xanthias’ imagination, 
and is recognized as such by the commentators. The rest of the descrip- 
tion, however, is based upon popular superstition, and the tone of Diony- 
sus’ question shows that the bronze leg of Empusa was well-known in bogy- 
lore. Yet the descriptions are by no means consistent. For example, the 
scholia on Frogs, loc. cit., and Eccl. 1056 identify Empusa with ’OvoxaAy 
or Ὀνοσκελίς, ἃ monster with the legs of an ass; cf. Luc. Ver. hist. ii. 46. 

It should be observed that while mixed or changing forms are 
attributed to many of the goblin figures of mythology, they are especially 
characteristic of the phantoms that have their origin in the dream or 
nightmare (see Laistner, Das Ratsel der Sphinx I, pp. 61-64; Roscher 
Ephialtes, pp. 8, 13, 64; Wundt Volkerpsychologie II. 2, p. 117). Since 
the connection of Empusa with the dream-demons may be regarded as 


Notes ΑΝῸ DIscussIons 333 


beyond doubt (Laistner loc. cit. ; Roscher op. ctt., p. 38; Crusius Philol. L, 
p. 99), it is natural that her power of transformation should be her most 
prominent characteristic (cf. Luc. De salt. 19; Philostr. Vit. Apoil. ii. 4; 
Roscher Lexikon, 8. v. “Empusa”). Even Pan seems to have been repre- 
sented at least once with snake-legs (Roscher Ephialtes, pp. 122 f.), and it 
is not surprising that the changeful Empusa should take on serpent coils. 

However, it is not necessary to argue from general considerations only. 
The scholiast of the Frogs 293 quotes a passage from the Ταγηνισταί of 
Aristophanes (/’r. 600, 501 K.) as follows: 


A. χθονί θ᾽ “Exarn 
σπείρας ὄφεων ἐλελιζομένη. 
Β. τί καλεῖς τὴν "Epsrovoay; 


This fragment identifies Empusa with Hecate, as the scholiast observes 
(cf. Roscher Lexikon, col. 1898, 8. v. ‘‘ Hekate,””) and also clearly attests 
some serpentine attribute for the former—a fact which was not noticed 
by Weizs&cker and Waser in the articles on “Empusa” in Roscher and 
Pauly-Wissowa. 

In Lucian Philops, 22 there is a story, too long to quote in full, which 
bears upon the present discussion. The superstitious Eucrates tells a 
cock-and-bull yarn about a midday encounter with an apparition of a 
gigantic woman attended by barking dogs and carrying a flaming torch. 
She had snake-feet (τὰ μὲν ἔνερθεν ὀφιόπους ἦν) and serpents coiled about 
her neck and shoulders. The specter, to which he refers as Ἑκάτη, finally 
disappears into the earth. 

After making due allowance for the Aufschneideret in this story, there 
stil] remain a number of traits belonging to the domain of common super- 
stition, which Lucian’s infernal Hecate has in common with Aristophanes’ 
Empusa. Lucian’s phantom is attended by dogs, while the bogy described 
by Xanthias in the Frogs turns to a dog, and then, and not till then, 
Dionysus recognizes the description to be that of Empusa. Lucian’s 
specter walks at midday, which is also a witching hour for Empusa (cf. 
Scho]. Ar. Frogs 293). The monster of the Philopseudes is serpent-footed, 
while Aristophanes, in the fragment quoted gives Empusa snaky coils. 
Finally, the torch of Lucian’s Hecate has its counterpart in the uncanny 
light that flames from the face of Empusa (Frogs 293). 

The word ὀφιόπους, used by Lucian in describing his monstrous woman, 
occurs, as far as J can discover, nowhere else except in the gloss in Suidas. 
I think, therefore, that the words ὀφιόπους γυνή in Suidas refer to the story 
in Lucian, and that the commentator explained them, not by the trifling 
ἕρπουσα of the MSS, but by the word ἔμπουσα, the name of the goblin 
identified with Hecate in popular folklore. 

CaMPBELL BONNER 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 


834 NoTres AND DISCUSSIONS 


NOTES ON THE EPITREPONTES OF MENANDER 


I. Toe Recoanition Sorene, Li. 358-79 


Habrotonon comes upon the stage, carrying the child which had been 
found exposed, wearing the ring of Charisios and other γνωρίσματα. She 
has already (cf. 11. 372, 401) spoken to Charisios according to her plan 
(1. 294 ff.), exhibiting the ring and claiming to be the mother of the child. 
The scene being lost, we can only infer that Charisios admitted his deed 
of violence on the night of the Tauropolia, and thus removed all doubts in 
her mind (Il. 282 ff.) about the paternity of the child. We might perhaps 
infer from her προσεποιησάμην (1. 372), when speaking to Sophrone, that 
her claim of motherhood had been admitted, and that she assumes that the 
report had been carried to the neighboring house.’ When Habrotonon 
appears, Sophrone comes out of the house of Smikrines, and is at once © 
recognized by the former as the attendant of the girl who was ravished at 
the Tauropolia. Through the door, left open by Sophrone, she also sees 
Pamphile,’? whom she recognizes as the girl she had seen at the Tauropolia, 
and concludes, from the situation, to be the daughter of Smikrines and 
wife of Charisios. The true state of affairs at once flashes upon her mind, 
and she bursts into joyful exclamations: ὦ φίλτατοι (θεοί xré., 1. 361 ff. 
(mostly indecipherable). She accosts Sophrone and the following dia- 
logue takes place: 


SopH. γύναι, πόθεν ἔχεις, εἶπέ μοι, τὸν (παῖδα... 
λαβοῦσ᾽; Has. ὁρᾶς τι, φιλτάτη, σοι γνώριμζον» 870 
(ὧν) τοῦτ᾽ ἔχει; μηδέν με δείσῃς, ὦ γύναι. 
Sopu. οὐκ Cér>exes αὐτὴ τοῦτο; Has. προσεποιησάμην, 
οὐχ ἵν᾽ ἀδικήσω τὴν τεκοῦσαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 
κατὰ σχολὴν εὕροιμι. νῦν δ᾽ —. Ξϑ΄ΟΡΗ. εὕρηκας οὖν; 
Has. ὁρῶ γὰρ ἣν καὶ τότε. ὥ΄οΡΗ. τίνος δ᾽ ἐστὶν πατρός; 375 
Has. Xapiiov. Sopg. τοῦτ οἷσθ᾽ ἀκριβῶς, φιλτάτη; 
Hap. .... «τον ee ee ee οὗ ye THY νύμφην ὁρῶ 
τὴν ἔνδον οὖσαν. ὅορΡΗ. ναίχι. Has. paxapia γύναι, 


θεῶν τις ὑμᾶς ἠλέησε. 


When Sophrone recognizes something the child is wearing, Habro- 
tonon knows the correctness of her conclusion that Pamphile is the child’s 
mother. Here Sophrone (1. 375) not knowing the basis of Habrotonon’s 
conclusions, might very pertinently inquire what reason there was for con- 
necting this child with the maiden of the Tauropolia, but, knowing herself 


1The same conclusion is perhaps to be drawn from the very puzzling fragment Q 
(11. 428 ff.). 

2Of. ὁρῶ γὰρ ὃν καὶ τότε, 1. 375, and τὴν νύμφην ὁρῶ τὴν ἔνδον οὖσαν͵ ll. 377-8; and 
see F, Leo Hermes XLIII (1908), p. 134. 


ΝΟΤΕΒ AND DISCUSSIONS 835 


that Pamphile is the mother, her whole interest lies in the question, 
“Who is its father?” Habrotonon answers “Charisios,” and to the further 
question whether that is certain, she replies by another question, partly 
lost, to which Sophrone answers, “Yes.” FF. Leo (loc. cit.) decides that, 
since Habrotonon has never seen Pamphile, she is still uncertain that the 
girl she sees in the house is the wife of Charisios, and wants assurance of 
that. He, accordingly, supplies, though not to his own satisfaction, <old’ 
εἴ ye σή ’or’, ἀφ) οὗ ye τὴν νύλφην po. But there is no reason for assum- 
ing any doubt in Habrotonon’s mind that the girl she sees in the house 
of Smikrines, the father-in-law of Charisios, is Charisios’ wife. And, fur- 
ther, certainty on this point would add nothing to the proof that Charisios . 
is the father, and this is the point at which Sophrone’s question aims. 
Now the paternity of Charisios is proved by the ring. Probably, then, 
Habrotonon produces the ring, and asks whether Pamphile got it from 
her ravisher. That she asks a question, rather than states the fact, need 
not imply that there is any doubt in her own mind, since her interview 
with Charisios. Still we must bear in mind that we are given to under- 
stand, in the early part of the play, that Charisios does not know what 
had become of his ring. ‘He knows only that he lost it on the night of the 
Tauropolia; cf. <6v ἀδπώλεσεν, 1. 177, τοῦτόν ποτε μεζθύων ἀπώλλεσ᾽ ὡς ἔφη, 
1, 190, Ταυροπολίοις ἀπώλεσεν τοῦτόν wore, 1. 234, ἀπέβαλεν δέ, φής, Tav ἴοις 
αὐτόν; (ONES.) παροινῶν γ᾽ ὡς ἐμοὶ τὸ παιδάριον el’ ἀκόλουθος, 1.255. The in- 
sistence upon the intoxication in this connection seems to be intended to 
explain why Charisios does not know what had become of his ring. We 
may suppose, too, that if he had given it to Pamphile, or known she had 
taken it, he would not have proclaimed his loss. It may well be, then, 
that to the mind of Habrotonon there is still lacking one link in the chain 
of proof. She is cautious in her conclusions (cf. 1]. 282 ff.). She knows 
that Charisios ravished a girl at the Tauropolia and that Pamphile was 
ravished then. If she learns that Pamphile took from her ravisher the 
ring that was found with the child, the chain of proof is completed. She, 
therefore asks, οὐχ οὗτος ἦν τοῦδ᾽ οὗ ye τὴν νύμφην ὁρῶ; “Did not this (ring) 
belong to him whose bride I see?” 


II. Onesimvus 


Wilamowitz in the Neue Jahrbicher far das klassiche Alterthum 
X XI (1908), p. 52, takes the view that Onesimus, when he gets the ring 
from Syriscus, knows that the child belongs to Charisios and Pamphile, 
and consequently fears to divulge the secret to his master, lest, when the 
natural reconciliation followed, he should be punished for his former 
slander of his mistress. Leo (loc. cit., p. 185) also thinks that, as early as 
l]. 251 ff., Onesimus and Habrotonon have a suspicion that Pamphile is 
the mother of the newly discovered child, for he says, “dass Pamphile 


886 ΝΟΤΕῈΒ AND DISCUSSIONS 


geboren hat, ist die Voraussetzung des Dialogs, 251 ff. (αὐτή ᾽στιν τυχόν 
268).” But the reference here (the proper reading is αὕτη not airy) is not 
to Pamphile, but to the girl Habrotonon had seen at the Tauropolia. 
Onesimus says, “She is the one, perhaps,” i. 6., whom Charisios probably 
violated (cf. ll. 236, 257). Wilamowitz, however, holds that Onesimus 
conceals from Habrotonon his suspicion that Pamphile is the mother. 
But there is not the slightest reason for believing that Onesimus himself 
had this suspicion. It would, indeed, be a rash conclusion. He knows 
that Pamphile has borne a child and concealed it, but knows nothing of 
the preceding circumstances. Knowing the time of the birth of her child 
he might, indeed, figure out that Pamphile’s indiscretion or ravishment 
must have been about the time of the Tauropolia. But what was there 
to suggest such a thought? Only the apparent age of the child could 
suggest that it might be Pamphile’s.' Onesimus’ reluctance to give the 
ring to Charisios and narrate the circumstances of its recovery is based 
entirely upon the evil results to him of his former revelation (I. 206 ff.). 
He fears to stir up new trouble (II. 211, 231, 288-40). He has said fare- 
well to meddling (1]. 355 ff.). The fact is—and this is decisive upon the 
point—that he would have jumped at the chance to bring the husband 
and wife together again and thus remove their anger against him. After 
such a joyful ending all would have been forgiven (Pamphile is of a for- 
giving nature, 1]. 421). It is inconceivable that in his soliloquies before 
Habrotonon comes in (1). 202 ff.) and after she has gone (ll. 340 ff.), he 
should not have expressed the suspicion of Pamphile’s motherhood more 
clearly. How, in particular, could he make such a remark as the follow- 
ing (11. 849 ff.): viv ἐπισφαλῆ | τὰ πράγματ᾽ ἐστὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν κεκτημέζνην" | 
ταχέως: ἐὰν γὰρ εὑρεθῇ πατρὸς κόρη | ἐλευθέρου μήτηρ τε τοῦ νῦν παιδόζς, ὃς) | 
γέγονεν, ἐκείνην λήψεται ταύτην Cadeis->, even though we assume, as I do, 
that ταύτην is Habrotonon, not Pamphile? It would be strange, too, that 
he should urge Habrotonon (Il. 280 f.) to find out who the girl was whom 
she had seen at the Tauropolia, for that could only lead to the discovery he 
is supposed to fear. 


III. Lu. 385 rr. 
XoAn 
μέλαινα προσπέπτωκεν ἢ τοιοντονὶ 
τις ἀγαντις. . .. ..- εν ἄλλο γέγονε . . 


I suggest, for the last line, τι μελάντζερον οἷον οὐδὲν ἄλλο γέγονέ (πων 
“black bile or something blacker such as nothing else has yet been.” 
A. G. Larrp 


1QOnesimus was not present when Daos mentioned the time of discovering the 
child (1. 26). 


NorTes AND DISCUSSIONS 337 


TWO NOTES ON LATIN SATIRE 


I, LUCILIUS FRAGMENT 605 [ MARX] AND THE CALLING OF ROMAN 
ASSEMBLIES 


Since many of the fragments of Lucilius are preserved in the pages 
of Nonius the grammarian we gain but little information as to their 
immediate context and sequence.’ It is of the interpretation of one such 
isolated fragment that I wish to speak. 


rauco contionem sonitu et curvis cogant cornibus. 


On this fragment Marx II, XXVI. 605? says: 


tragoediae argumentum enarrat et examinat eius utilitatem:....Ad 
Pacuvii Armorum [udicium spectare Lucilii crisin probabile est: .... morem 
Romanum adplicat poeta aetati Troicae. 


As to whether or not we have here a scene from a Greek tragedy with 
plot of the Trojan cycle, but painted in Roman colors as Marx supposes, 
it is really impossible to decide; nor is the question a vital one. My 
effort therefore will be rather to show that whether the scene be Homeric 
or Roman, the usage described is the Roman method of summoning the 
assembly, and not that of the Homeric heralds.’ 

To my mind this conclusion is rendered probable by a comparison 
with a little noticed passage in the Antiquitates Romanae of Dionysius 
of Halicarnassus ii. 8. 4: τοὺς μὲν πατρικίους ὁπότε δόξειε τοῖς βασιλεῦσι 
συγκαλεῖν, οἱ κήρυκες ἐξ ὀνόματος τε καὶ πατρόθεν ἀνηγόρευον, τοὺς δὲ δημοτικοὺς 
ὑπηρέται τινὲς ἀθρόους κέρασι βοείοις ἐμβυκανῶντες ἐπὶ τὰς ἐκκλησίας συνῆγον. 
Furthermore, in Mommsen’s Staatsrecht I*, Ὁ. 363, we have the activity of 
the heralds in summoning the senators to the curia and the people to the 
contio and comitia discussed. As far as the senators are concerned the 
statement of Dionysius seems to be expressly confirmed by Livy iii. 38. 8; 
also by the testimony of Dionysius himself in two other passages, ix. 63, 2 
and xi. 4.1. In the last of these the phrase ἐξ ὀνόματος is again applied . 
to the summons to the senators. | 

Mommeen I, p. 364, n. 7, expresses his doubt as to the existence of the 
method of calling by name, and maintains that the senators were called 


1Since our fragment is isolated in Nonius the conservative method of interpreta- 
tion would seem to-be to consider its contents separately without undue prejudice for 
the ingenious but virtually fict context woven about it in the editions of Maller and 
Marx. 

2Of. also Baehrens Poetae Latini minores VI. 469; Maller Lucilii saturarum reli- 
quiae XXVI. 33, and Lachmann XXVI. 585. 

8It seems needless to refute in detail this erroneous supposition of Lucian Maller. 
His own Homeric parallels are not in point and an examination of all the passages 
under κήρυξ in Ebeling’s Homeric lexicon reveals not a single instance of the use of 
the horn or trumpet in Homer. On the contrary Homer’s heralds, as is well known, 
assembled the people by shouting. Of. Buchholz Homerische Realien 11, $12, pp. 48 ff. 


838 NoTEs AND DISOUSSIONS 


from their homes by the viatores, while the actual reading of the names 
he characterizes as “ftibel erfunden.” In regard to the first point an 
examination of the passages cited by Mommeen and in particular the 
testimony of Festus (p. 371 ed. Mfiller; cf. Pliny N. H. xviii. 3. 20) seems to 
show not that the heralds were not used to summon the senators from their 
city houses, but rather that the viatores, as, indeed, their name implies, 
were especially used to summon senators from their suburban estates. 
Indeed, Cicero in De sen. 16. 56, clearly states this in the case of Cincin- 
natus. We have thus a natural differentiation between the praecones 
and viatores, two classes of apparitores. As to the reading of the names: 
such a ceremony seems to me entirely in keeping with the traditional 
simplicity of the small city state just developing from a rude agglomera- 
tion of clan settlements. Originally the clan chieftains and the senators, 
their successors, were familiarly and honorably called by their own names 
and as the sons of respected sires. We even have occasional survivals of 
this practice under the empire when the ordinary method of summons 
was by the imperial edict. Thus in Suetonius Vita Claudii 36 we read: 
senatum per praecones propere convocavit. 

In regard to the summons to the people. Here since the great Roman 
assembly, the comitia centuriata was originally the assembly of all 
armed freemen meeting outside the pomerium, we may fairly look for 
the contradiction or confirmation of the statement of Dionysius in the 
method of calling a contio of soldiers by the commanding general. We 
find confirmation;' the blowing of the trumpet is the well-recognized 
summons. But we have specific testimony to this military method of 
summoning the comitia centuriata itself in addition to the analogy of 
military usage. Thus Aulus Gellius Noct. Aft. xv. 27. 2, quoting the 
jurist Labeo: Curiata per lectorem curiatum “calari” id est convocart, 
centuriata per cornicinem. From this passage it is not unnatural to 
infer that the cornicines are the ministri referred to as ὑπηρέται in the 
passage quoted from Dionysius. Again we have a striking survival of 
this old custom in the case of public executions and trials before the 
comitia centuriata outside the city walls. Thus when a citizen was 
summoned to trial on a capital charge, e. g., Gaius Gracchus,? the trumpet 
was sounded in certain public places and before the defendant’s house. 
Varro, indeed (De ling. Lat. vi. 91, 92), gives the exact decree in such 
cases. Tacitus Ann. ii. 32.5, speaking of the case of P. Mucius under 
the year 16 a. p., gives an interesting survival of the custom.’ 

Within the walls, naturally, the method of summons was civic rather 
than military, and hence we may agree with Mommeen loc. cit., I’, p. 199. 


1 Livy vii. 86. 9; vili. 7. 14, 32.1; xxvi. 48. 13. 
2Plutarch C. Gracchus 3. 836; Seneca De ira i. 16. 15. 
3 Here as Furneaux suggests the summons was to witness an execution. 


Norges AND DISOUSSIONS 889 


Indeed, even outside of the city walls the duties of the cornicen were, 
perhaps, performed under the general supervision of the praeco. 

To sum up: (1) On the basis of the cumulative evidence afforded by 
the testimony of such writers as Varro, Livy, Dionysius, and Aulus 
Gellius, we may venture to say that our passage refers to the Roman 
method of convoking an assembly of freemen outside the pomerium, pre- 
sumably by the horns of the cornicines. (2) As we have a survival of 
this practice in the case of capital trials and executions in the last two 
centuries of the republic and in the early empire, it is tempting to con- 
jecture that Lucilius may be speaking of some such contemporary trial 
on a capital charge. Like Marx’s Homeric scene, however, this is only a 
possibility. 

II. VABRO’S MENIPPEAN SATIRE, FRAGMENT 57 [ BOCHELER’S 
PETRONIUS | AND THE CHOLIAMBIC METER 


I wish here to present an interpretation of a very corrupt line in the 
Bimarchus of Varro, No. 57 in Bicheler’s minor edition of Petronius. 
In order to secure a working text I accept with Bticheler the clever 
restoration of Vahlen,! but hold that even upon the assumption that this 
restoration is approximately correct, Vahlen, if I understand his Latin 
note, misses Varro’s main point. The restored text reads: 


ne mé pedatus < ~ versuum tardor 
refrenet arte compari rythmon certum. 


Vahlen interprets this: “ne pedata versuum tarditate retinear aequa- 
bilitatem certorum numerorum secutus.” This he further explains as 
meaning: “varie et versibus et sermone miscere orationem placet,” that 
is, the use of a form of composition presumably, though Vahlen does not 
explicitly say this, the Menippean satire—in which verse and prose are 
pleasantly blended. 

To my mind, however, the point in the line is a purely metrical allu- 
sion to the limping effect produced in the choliambic verse by the breaking- 
up of the even flow of iambic feet by the substitution at the end of the 
line of the trochee. Hence the further designation of “scazon” by the 
Greek metricians. Varro then simply says, translating literally, “Lest 
the limping slowness of my verse should check me from the even or unin- 
terrupted art of definite or regularly recurring measures.” 

It will be noticed that compart, paraphrased with some strain by 
aequabilitatem in Vahlen’s note, is harsh, the fact being that its presence 
in the original text is by no means assured. It is not, however, at all 
essential to the general sense of the passage according to my interpreta- 
tion. Varro simply means that in the choliambic meter the limping 
slowness of the measure precludes the art shown in measures with more 


1 Contectanea in Varronis saturarum reliquias, Ὁ. 188. 


840 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 


uninterrupted rhythmic flow, such, for example, as the dactylic hexameter 
or the iambic senarius. 

To the whimsical mind of Varro the literal meaning of pedatus may 
lend itself to this interpretation. Thus we find the word used by Pliny 
N. Η. xvii. 35. 10: aut pedatae vineae simplict tugo and Columella iv. 20, 
of vines propped up. Hence the limping measure is a “propped meas- 
ure,” or, as Varro phrases it, has a “propped slowness” about it, with the 
suggestion, of course, of the crutch. 

To express such a criticism of the 760s of the choliambic meter tn that 
meter is quite in keeping with Varro’s childlike pedantry. Indeed, such 
a criticism may be regarded as especially appropriate at a time when the 
choliambic verse was just becoming known to the Romans through the 
metrical experiments of Cn. Matius, Laevius, and Varro himself, the first 
Roman metrical theorizer and “practitioner.”! Varro we know intro- 
duced into his Mentppean Satires many new metrical forms based on 
Greek models. . 

Finally it is to be noticed that the expression in ἃ given verse-form of 
the limitations or peculiarities of that meter was a not uncommon conceit 
among the ancients. Thus Critias of Alcibiades:? 

καὶ νῦν κλεινίον υἱὸν ᾿Αθηναῖον στεφανώσω 
᾿Αλκιβιάδην νώοισιν ὑμνήσας τρόποις. 
οὐ γάρ πως ἦν τοὔνομ᾽ ἐφαρμόζειν ἐλεγείῳ: 
νῦν δ᾽ ἐν ἰαμβείῳ κείσεται οὐκ ἀμέτρως. 
So in Lucilius vi. 229, Marx, perhaps of the Sigillaria: 
quem plane hexametro versu non dicere possis 


Better known are Horace’s allusion, Sat. i. 5. 86, to the unmanageable 
Apulian town of Equus Tuticus, and the metrical allusion of Ovid Ha 


ponto iv. 12. 1 ff. to Tuticanus. 
GEORGE CONVERSE FISKE 
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 


JUVENAL I. 7-9 


Nota magis nulli domus est sua quam mihi lucus 
Martis et Aeoliis vicinum rupibus antrum 
Vulcani 
The scholiast remarks: ‘“ Lucum Martis dicit qui Romae est in Appia 
in quo solebant recitare poetae; aut illum qui apud Colchos est in quo 
fuit pellis aurea; aut in quo Ilia peperit.” 
In the subscription to the first book of Martianus Capella some MSS 
read: “Securus Memor Felix v. sp. com. consist. rhetor R. ex mendosis- 
1Cf. Gleditech Metrik der Griechen und Romer, Ὁ. 248. On Varro’s importance 
compare the words of his contemporary, Cicero, Acad. post. i. 9. 
2 Bergk-Hiller Anth., frag. δ. 


NorTes AND DISCUSSIONS 841 


simis exemplaribus emendabam contra legente Deuterio scholastico 
discipulo meo Romae ad portam Capenam cos. Paulini v. c. sub d. non. 
Martiarum Christo adiuvante.” This Felix was a rhetor urbis Romae 
and corrected his copy of Martianus Capella in 534 a. p. In the Ber. d. 
k. sachs. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften, 1851, p. 352, Jahn makes this 
note: “Er hatte sein Auditorium ad portam Capenam. Vielleicht 
kann man die noch nicht erklarte Notiz des Scholiasten zu Juv. i. 7 
damit zusammenbringen: ..... Der Tempel des Mars ist nicht weit 
vor der porta Capena, und wenn dort das Auditorium des rhetor urbis 
Romae lag, war die Verwechselung nicht so arg, die Recitationen der 
Dichter, wie sie frither fiblich waren, dahin zu verlegen.” 

Hfilsen in discussing the shrine of the Camenae (Jordan-Hflsen, 
Topographie I, 3,208) says: ‘“ Bemerkenswerth ist, dass auch in sp&ter 
Kaiserzeit beim Camenenheiligthum resp. in unmittelbarer N&he der 
Porta Capena Locale fir litterarische Versammlungen, Recitationen von 
Dichtern u. s. w. sich befanden.” In the note he quotes the passage 
from Juvenal and says: ‘Ob der Dichter selbst auf eine solche Localitat 
hat anspielen wollen, bleibe dahingestellt; in der Zeit der Scholias- 
ten muss sie jedenfalls existirt haben. Das damit zusammen vorkom- 
mende antrum Vulcani ist bemerkenswerth, besonders da ein antrum 
Cyclopis in der zweiten Region an der Grenze der ersten bezeugt ist. 

..’ He then cites the subscription to the Capella MSS, and the 
following passage from a letter of Symmachus to Ausonius, on the occa- 
sion of the elevation of the latter to the consulship (Ep. i. 20): “Bene ac 
sapienter maiores nostri . . . . aedes Honori atque Virtuti gemella facie 
iunctim locarunt. Sed enim propter etiam Camenarum religio sacro 
fontis advertitur, quia iter ad capessendos magistratus saepe litteris pro- 
movetur.” 

Lastly, Stara-Tedde, in discussing the lucus Martis (Bull. Com., 1907, 
181) says: “Ivi[i. 6. outside the porta Appia] dunque si deve pure col- 
locare il lucus, cui forse allude Giovenale, i. 7.” 

Now while all would admit at once that the reading of the poet’s 
passage in its context would never suggest anything but the scholiast’s 
second explanation, and while no editor, so far as I have been able to dis- 
cover, not even the encyclopedic Mayor, makes the slightest reference 
to the first, evidently regarding it as undeserving of a single word, it is 
interesting to observe that the archaeologists seem to think it at least as 
possible as the second. In admitting this possibility, however, they seem 
to me to have overlooked certain facts. 

In the first place it is very hazardous to connect any point properly 
designated as ad portam Capenam with the lucus Martis, inasmuch as 
all topographers are agreed in locating the temple of Mars two kilometres 
beyond the porta Capena and outside the line of the Aurelian wall, and 
it is highly improbable that the sacred grove was of any great size. A 


842 Nores aND DIsvvussIONs 


grove that was certainly considerably more than a kilometre distant could 
not be spoken of as ad portam Capenam. Therefore the rhetor Felix 
would not have spoken of himself as working ad portam Capenam if 
he had been working in the lucus Martis. Furthermore, while Jahn’s 
explanation that Felix had his lecture room in this part of the city is 
perfectly possible, its reference may just as probably be applied to his 
house. The Caelian was a favorite residential quarter during the 
empire. The passage from Symmachus need mean nothing more than 
that the proximity of the shrine of the Camenae— always regarded as a 
source of poetic inspiration — to the temple of Honos and Virtus empha- 
sized the real connection between literary success and official position 
(honos) through virtus, a connection just illustrated so effectively in the 
case of Ausonius. Any further implication seems to me improbable 
because wholly unnecessary. I think, therefore, there is no real support 
for the first explanation of the scholiast in either of these supposed 
parallels. 

In the second place the correspondence between antrum Vulcant 
and antrum Cyclopis might be suggestive, were it not for the additional 
modifiers Aecolits vicinum rupibus. This is so obvious that one would 
regard any mention of it as a waste of time, had it not been apparently 
overlooked. It is the Aecolits victnum rupibus antrum Vulcani that is 
in the mind of the poet, and this is closely united with lucus Martis. The 
two belong together, and it is manifestly impossible to explain lucus Martis 
as referring to an assembling-place of poets in Rome, and antrum Vulcant 
as referring to the Lipari islands. If the first refers to the temple of 
Mars in Rome, the second must also refer to some monument or locality 
in the same neighborhood, and to identify Aeoltis rupibus with any part 
of the Caelian hill would tax the ingenuity of the most imaginative of 
topographers. 

The impossibility of admitting his first explanation of Juvenal’s 
reference does not of course impugn the veracity of the scholiast’s state- 
ment that poets had been wont to read in the grove of Mars. 5. BP 


OVID FASTI IV. 209 


Ardua iam dudum resonat tinnitibus Ide, 
tutus ut infanti vagiat ore puer. 

209 Pars clipeos mantbus, galeas pars tundit inanes: 
hoc Curetes habent, hoc Corybantes opus. 
res latuit, priscique manent imitamina facti: 
aera deae comites raucaque terga movent. 

213 cymbala pro galeis, pro scutis tympana pulsant, 
tibia dat Phrygios, ut dedit ante, modos. 


In verse 209, twenty-eight MSS read manibus, two MSS give 
rudibus, Lactantius has sudibus, while editors in general read rudibus. 


NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 848 


The change rests, I believe, on a mistaken basis. Tradition gave the 
Curetes sword and shield as it is evident from Dionysius Hal. ii. 60: 
χορείαν δὲ καὶ κίνησιν ἐνόπλιον, καὶ τὸν ἐν ταῖς ἀσπίσιν ἀποτελούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν 
ἐγχειριδίων ψόφον, εἴ τι δεῖ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις τεκμηροῦσθαι λόγοις, Κούρητες ἦσαν οἱ 
πρῶτοι καταστησάμενοι, It is probably to this tradition that we owe the 
change of manibus to rudibus. 

But in descriptions of the Curetes tradition was not always blindly 
followed; Apollodorus, for instance (i. 1. 7) gave spears to the Curetes, 
and a terra-cotta relief reproduced in Roscher shows Curetes striking 
shields together. The pyrrhic was a development of the Curete dance, 
but the pyrrhic relief in the Acropolis Museum shows the right hand 
empty, as does the similar relief found at Praeneste. 

Ovid, then, was not without a precedent in not following tradition, 
and that he did not follow it is evident from the position of the helmets, 
which are not worn on the head, but carried in the hand. Even the 
editors of rudibus could not follow tradition exactly, for some of the parti- 
cipants must bear sword and shield, others sword and helmet. Now as 
Ovid evidently did not follow the accepted tradition, there is a possible, 
perhaps probable, view of his words which will allow us to accept manibus 
as the right reading, in accordance with the great majority of MSS. 

The key to the matter lies, I think, in v. 218: cymbala pro galeis, pro 
scutts tympana pulsant. We should bear in mind that Ovid is describing 
the ministers of Cybele, the Corybantes, and that the emphasis lies on 
them, not on Curetes. But the Corybantes carried tympana and cym- 
bala only, and if we are to have an exact paralle] with the Curetes, then 
the latter, from whom, as Ovid says, the Corybantes are derived, must 
bear only such weapons as can be replaced by tympana and cymbala. 
This exact correspondence can be found by reading manibus in vs. 209, 
for then we shal] have the shields struck with the hand for the tympana 
(pro scutis tympana), and the helmets for the cymbala (cymbala pro 
galeis), but the helmets must be struck together. The parallel is then 
perfect, swords being omitted as having no counterpart among the instru- 
ments of the Corybantes. 

W. E. Ὁ. Downes 


FARMINGTON, MAINE 


NOTE ON PLATO PHILEBUS 11 B, C. 


Φίληβος μὲν τοίνυν ἀγαθὸν εἶναί φησι τὸ χαίρειν πᾶσι ζώοις . . . . τὸ δὲ wap’ 
ἡμῶν ἀμφισβήτημά ἐστι, μὴ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ τὸ νοεῖν... . ἀμείνω 


καὶ λῴω γίγνεσθαι ξύμπασιν, ὅσαπερ αὐτῶν δυνατὰ μεταλαβεῖν: δυνατοῖς δὲ 
μετασχεῖν ὠφελιμώτατον ἁπάντων εἶναι πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσί τε καὶ ἐσομένοις. 

There are two problems here: (1) The use οὗ ἀγαθόν without the 
article; (2) The construction. οὗ δυνατοῖς δὲ μέτασχεϊν, etc. 


844 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 


(1) Kthner-Gerth § 462.1, say, citing this passage and Rep. 505 C, 
that the substantively used adjective must stand without the article 
when it is the predicate. That is hardly true as appears from Aristotle’s 
remark, An. Pri. 1. 40: ἐπεὶ δ᾽ οὐ ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ εἶναι τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀγαθὸν καὶ 
τὸ εἶναι τὴν ἡδονὴν τὸ ἀγαθόν. Plato himself uses τἀγαθόν γε αὐτὸ as predi- 
cate in Phileb. 67 A, though the passage has been otherwise and wrongly 
construed. The Hippias Major (287 D) dwells on the distinction between 
καλὸν and τὸ καλὸν but later neglects it, once in mere carelessness (298 E) 
and once with intentional fallacy (297 C). We need not therefore with 
Grote speak of a fallacy in Philebus 11 B, or with Poste assume a 
recognition of the Megarian or Stoic idea that there is no good except 
the good. It is merely a case of what Wilamowitz calls the “sane 
nonchalance” of Greek style. The meaning is perfectly plain, and the 
semblance of formal fallacy is cured by πᾶσι. What is good for all is 
the good. 

(2) δυνατοῖς δὲ μετασχεῖν, etc., is translated by Jowett: “And that to all 
such who are or ever will be they (τὸ φρονεῖν, etc.) are the most advanta- 
geous of all things.” Bury approves of Stallbaum’s explanation: δυνα- 
τοῖς δὲ μετασχεῖν (αὐτῶν) ὠφελιμώτατον (αὐτὸ S, μετασχεῖν) dvu. Neither of 
these constructions is grammatically probable or yields the true mean- 
ing. Jowett’s interpretation does not explain the singular ὠφιλειμώτατον, 
which cannot be accounted for “by the correspondence in which it stands 
to ἀγαθόν. Stallbaum’s construction involves, as Badham says, a harsh 
ellipse, and shares with Jowett’s the difficulty that δυνατοῖς so used 
requires the article. Badham (2d ed.) in despair reads τὸ δὲ μετασχεῖν, 
rejecting δυνατοῖς as a bad interpolation. All these interpretations yield 
the tautology that intelligence is the good and it or the participation in 
it is beneficial. What Plato wishes to say is that intelligence, etc., are 
better than pleasure for all who are capable of participating in them, 
and that to be 80 capable is ὠφελιμώτατον to all creatures. To get this 
meaning from the text we need only construe εἶναι twice, once with 
δυνατοῖς and once with ὠφελιμώτατον. The repetition of εἶναι would have 
been very awkward, and there is no lack of examples of such double 
functioning. Cf. in addition to Kthner-Gerth 597f., Rep. 604B: περὶ 
τὸ αὐτὸ ἅμα δύο φαμὲν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι; Marchant on Thucyd. i. 136. 
4, Plato Gorg. 489 Ο. 

The dative predicate, δυνατοῖς, is familiar. Cf. Kithner-Gerth 475. 2 ὃ, 
and Epinomis 978 C, Rep. 361 B, and Tim. 77 C, where failure to recog- 
nize the construction has led many astray. This interpretation does 
justice to a common but often overlooked force of δὲ. It is used, as 
Cicero sometimes employs autem, to pick up and define or comment on 
a repeated term (δυνατὰ .... δυνατοῖς). Cf. Rep. 337 D, 338 Ὁ, 490 B, 
858 Ὁ; Symp. 193B; Phaedr. 239A; Laws 650A. The possible objec- 
tion that εἶναι as articular (substantive) inf. would need the article may 


Nores AND DISCUSSIONS 845 


be met by citing Gorg.470 A: σμικρὸν δύνασθαι, and also by the considera- 
tion that the article would interfere with its other function of copula. 

As for the thought, it is Plato’s manner to distinguish thus explicitly 
those who can and those who cannot partake of higher things. Cf. 
Epinomis 978 C. πολλοῖς... . οὐδ εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἡ φύσις παραγέγονεν 
ὥστε μαθεῖν δυνατοῖς εἶναι; Tim. 47 A, Β; Protag. 312 Ὁ, Phaedr. 247 A; 
Phileb. 22 B. Our passage, then, means that the gifts of intelligence 
are better than pleasure for all who are able to share them and that to 
be so able is the highest blessing for every creature. 

Pav. SHorry 


NOTES ON THE TEXT OF SIMPLICIUS DE CAELO 


P. 297. 7 (ed. Heiberg): for τῷ ᾿Αριστοτέλει the context requires that 
we read: τῷ ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ. 

. P. 456. 2: for καὶ πράξεως καὶ ζωῆς, ἔμψυχα δηλονότι, ὅλα μετέχει τὰ οὐράνια, 
read: ἔμψυχα δηλονότι ὄντα. 

P. 488. 28: for ἀπλανῶν read: πλανωμένων. 

P. 502. 3: for πρὸ τῶν φερουσῶν τὴν διὰ τεττάρων read: τὸν At. Cf. 
Alex. Met. 705. 10: τῶν σφαιρῶν τῶν φερουσῶν τὸν Aia. 

Pavt SHorey 


BOOK REVIEWS 


ΜΙ. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionts Oratoriae Libri xii. Edidit 
Lupovious RADEEMACHER. Pars Prior, libros i—vi continens. 
Leipzig: Teubner, 1907. Pp. 359.. M. 8. 


Complete editions of Quintilian recur in cycles, it would seem, of 
about twenty years. Halm’s appeared in 1868, Meister’s in 1886, and 
now we have the first volume of a new critical text. The intimation 
made in 1891 by Ferdinand Becher that he had such a task in hand 
sufficed to turn away from it others who may then have had inclinations 
in that direction. But ten years later Becher died and the new editor 
has fallen heir to his labors. In form and feature Radermacher’s edition 
is meant to replace Bonnell’s well-known text, published in the Teubner 
series over half a century ago. In the interval the criticism of Quintilian 
has made conspicuous progress, and with the help of his coadjutors 
Radermacher has turned to good account, without overloading his appa- 
ratus, the floating material that lay ready to his hand. Becher had com- 
pleted only his commentary on the first book, but for the rest he left 
copious notes, critical and illustrative. As regards the MSS, his chief 
contribution was a complete collation of the Paris codex (7723) which 
belonged to Laurentius Valla: for Book x its readings have already been 
incorporated in the Oxford edition, where see p. Ixxiv. Of this codex, 
which he calls P, the editor has made good use throughout, supporting 
or correcting it by Par. 7725 (Q), and for the great lacunae also by a 
fifteenth-century MS in the Vatican (1762=V). No reference is made to 
any of the MSS in English libraries. And yet in view of the present 
condition of the Vallensis (Praef., p. ix), recourse might very well be had 
to Harl. 4995, which I used for the Oxford edition of Book x. And some 
reference might have been looked for to Harl. 2662 (H), a tenth- or 
eleventh-century codex, which ranks as the oldest complete MS of Quin- 
tilian in existence. If it is considered of no great importance, as being 
probably in great part a copy of the Bambergensis, it may be replied 
that the latter is itself a copy of the Bernensis. Al] three are practically 
contemporary, and some examination of the Harletanus might have shed 
light on the added parts of the Bamberg MS (G) as well as the readings 
of the second-hand (δ). Alongside of H, the readings of such codies as 
the Florentinus (ΕἾ and the Turicensis (T) become more or less super- 
fluous. That Radermacher will do well to take account of H for the 

346 


Boox REVIEWS 847 


later books, especially where the Ambrosianus fails, will appear from 
the following jottings which I have culled from my notes. The read- 
ing given is in each case that found in the Harletanus. 

VI Prooem. §4: nist quod (for quam quod). This should be restored 
to the text, especially as I am able to report that it is also the reading of 
the Bambergensis (G), as well as of V and S: «bid. ὃ 7 quam for quod 
(AG). Ati, 848, H is the only MS that shows inqutt, hitherto credited 
to the ed. Campana. cf. ὃ 47 ita neque (with P V) ttaque ne. 

V Prooem. $1 gratia (with A) for vel tra. Here the second hand in 
Bg. has vel gratia. ΑἹ 4, 81, we have another remarkable instance of 
reversion to A: altera quaestionem vel falsa A H, where Bg. shows 
quaestionem written over the words of the text eftam causam. CF. i. 
4, 824: computabo (with A) for putabo: 1, 888 agentibus (with A P) 
for agendi (B). 

Moreover, for the early part of the first book, where the Bambergensis 
almost entirely fails, H should be quoted in its stead: e.g., Pr. §5 filert 
oratorem non posse, §14 sapientiae studiost, ὃ 25 demonstraturi. Again 
in the Prooemium §4 H shows swumm (ἃ ἢ neloquentige; the archetype 
probably had summam eloquentiae, for the passage relied on at x. 1. 97 
to support summam in eloquentia is not exactly parallel. Ati. 1.19H 
supports the vulgate per singulos annos prorogatum : and gives ati. 2.4: 
nam et potest turpis esse domesticus ille praeceptor. Ati. 8. 14 it has 
discipulis for discentis. 

Radermacher makes generous reference to the labors of his prede- 
cessors. He holds fast (Praef., p. vi) to the established division of the 
MSS into three main families, and gives reasons (p. xi) why A should 
not always be preferred to B. Moreover, his careful selection of authori- 
ties has enabled him very considerably to simplify the critical apparatus. 
In particular, references to the edd. vett. are now in the main superfluous, 
as their readings in important places have been traced to one or other of 
the numerous MSS by which our knowledge of Quintilian’s text has 


become enlarged. W. Perenso 
. Pz N 


MoGi.tyt University, MONTREAL 
November 1, 1907 


Renkema’s Observationes criticae et exegeticae ad C. Valeri 
Flaccit Argonautica. Traiecti ad Rhenum, 1906. Pp. 63. 
M. 3. 

This pamphlet on Valerius Flaccus’ epic comes not inopportunely 
at no great distance of time from the publication of Giarratano’s epoch- 
making edition of the text (1904). Renkema adds several new emenda- 
tions to the already large collection recorded by Giarratano. I cannot 


848 Boox REVIEWS 


honestly say that any of them seems to me convincing, but the discus- 
sion of crucial passages which accompanies them is scholarly and 
suggestive. Renkema naturally deals with many of the points raised 
by Langen’s usually trustworthy commentary (1890), and his criticisms 
appear to me to raise real questions and to open up solutions which may 
be right. In other cases his disputation is less to the point and its 
result unsatisfactory. For instance, it may be true—and probably is— 
that sacrae harenae (iv. 230) can scarcely mean that the shore where 
Pollux is to fight with Amycus is consecrated because of the religious 
character of the spectacle; but that is no reason for interpreting sacrae 
as “accursed.” The very similar passage quoted by Renkema (iv. 746) 
where the shore is called saeuae, suggests that in iv. 230 sacrae is an 
error for saeuae, The cruz in iv. 186 reges preme dure secundos is not 
likely to be a corruption of rex te premet arte secunda, even if treme is 
rejected as not sufficiently accounting for secundos. And who can 
believe that in iv. 366 f. where MSS give Munerts ille potens custodem 
protinus Argum Adiungit custos Argus placet, we are to substitute 
acrem for Argum? But at iv. 507 tonutt cum forte Veseut Hesperiae 
letalis apex, where Langen absurdly believed forte to be an adjectival 
adverb, Renkema has an excellent discussion on cum forte which he 
shows from Aen. ix. 437, xi. 450 to be especially used in similes and not 
open to any real doubt in the passage of Valerius. 


Rosrinson E.uis 
. OxFORD 


Die Eumeniden des Arschylos. Erklarende Ausgabe. Von 
Frizprion Buass. Berlin: Weidmann, 1907. Pp. 179. 
M. 5. 


Blass’s posthumous Eumenides is marked by the terseness, direct- 
ness, and avoidance of mere erudition which distinguished his Choepho- 
ren (Class. Philol., Vol. I, p. 440). 

The Introduction sets forth clearly how the hero-drama is trans- 
formed into a Gotterdrama symbolical of the advance from the old to 
the new moral order. The resemblance of Aeschylus’ ideas to those 
expressed by Plato in the Laws is emphasized. The Areopagus passage 
is taken as a protest against the reforms of Ephialtes, not as a warning 
against going farther. Changes of scene take place not only at 1. 63 by 
the eccyclema, and after 1. 234 from Delphi to Athens, but by implica- 
tion from Athena’s temple to the Areopagus after 566. The independ- 
ence of fgh from M is maintained. 

Among the more notable readings or interpretations accepted are: 
21: εὐλόγως for ἐν λόγοις; 294: οὐ xarnped7 (notes μὴ) for 7; 304: σκιαῖ for 
σκιά; 494: viv μεταστροφαὶ νέων θεσμίων, 7 κρατήσει Sika<re>nai βλάβα, 


Boox REvIEWwSs 849 


where the notes affirm, I think wrongly, that δίκα καὶ βλάβα must mean 
“the just punishment;” 506: οὐ BéBar’, ἃ τλάμων; 521: ris δὲ μηδὲν ἐν dda 
(= μηθὲν ἐμφανές) καρδίαν dy’ (ἔτι) τρέων. In 516 (τὸ δεινὸν εὖ) εὖ is taken 
with δεῖ μένειν below. On 585-608 the number of the chorus is fixed δὲ 
twelve. On 429 ff. it is argued that Aeschylus, like Plato, objects to the 
evidential oath on principle and not merely to its application in a case 
where the issue depends on the intention not on the act. Accordingly 
εὐθείαν (δίκην) 483 is said to be simply the antithesis of σκολιάν. Athena 
does not vote but merely announces that if the votes are evenly divided 
her voice will decide for the defendant. In 735 therefore τῆνδε refers to 
the preceding line and is not to be taken deictically of the ψῆφος. 


Pavut SHOREY 


Der griechische Alexanderroman. VON ADOLF AUSFELD; nach 
des Verfassers Tode herausgegeben voN WILHELM KROLL. 
Leipzig: Teubner, 1907. Pp. xi+ 253. M. 8. 


Ausfeld’s work on the Greek romance of Alexander the Great was left 
unfinished at his untimely death; and we owe it to the piety of Ulrich 
Bernays and the co-operation of Wilhelm Kroll that the manuscript was 
finished, corrected, and abridged for publication. 

The book contains a statement of the manuscript relations which make 
it possible to establish the third-century a. p, text (pp. 8-28), a translation 
of this text (pp. 30-122), and a detailed historical commentary upon it 
(pp. 122-213). Single brackets are used in the translation to segregate 
what, in Ausfeld’s judgment, is the story proper from the accretions which 
had been made before the end of the third century a. p.; double brackets 
to mark off passages interpolated in the accretions previous to that time. 
The original thus appears to have been a fairly well-written and self- 
consistent popular history which was composed in Alexandria at the time 
of the fifth Ptolemy. Into this narrative some ignorant but pretentious 
persons probably of the age of the Severi set letters, especially of Alexander 
and Aristotle, and, besides other episodes—such as a visit to Kandake, 
Queen of the Ethiopians — the description of a campaign in Greece which 
was undertaken by Alexander after he had overrun Rome, Carthage, Egypt, 
and Phoenicia, but before he had defeated Darius. The chief arguments 
for the analysis thus made are set forth by Ausfeld in a number of con- 
cluding essays (pp. 213-53). | 

The author has sought everywhere to establish real or reported facts 
as the points of departure for such incidents and episodes in the romance 
as are not mere errors of composition; and he holds the attitude and bias 
of Ptolemaic Alexandria mainly responsible for the shape these facts finally 
assumed. He has thus completed a necessary preliminary task, and 
obtained the convincing results that the book drew largely from the most 


350 4 Book REvVIEws 


sensational histories of Alexander’s achievements, and possesses a per- 
ceptible Ptolemaic flavor. It, accordingly, sought, or affected to seek, a 
reputation for veracity; but whether this was a genuine ambition, or a 
literary artifice, Ausfeld might have determined differently, had he lived 
to finish his work. He might then have trusted less in the good faith of 
the writer’s sources; that is to say, given more weight in them to imagin- 
ative literature, to Schwartz’s historical romances, or to Reitzenstein’s 
Aretalogie, if not to Rohde’s oriental folk-tales. He might even have 
come to feel less confidence about the separate existence and personality 
of any of the elements perceptible in the third-century a. p. text. As it 
is, his book is valuable to students of mediaeval and ancient literature in 
that it makes accessible for the first time a reliable interpretation of a 
work, which, translated, with adaptations, into Latin, Armenian, Syriac, 
Persian, Arabic, Ethiopian, Coptic, and practically every language of 
mediaeval Europe, was once known and popular from Naishaptr to 
Nabata, from England to little Russia. 
W. 5. Ferevuson 


C. Suetont Tranquillt de Vita Caesarum Inbri VIII. Recensuit 
MaximIuianus ΗΜ. Leipzig: Teubner, 1907. Pp. lxvi+ 
876. M. 12. 


This edition marks an advance over the edition of Roth, which, in 
spite of its shortcomings, has hitherto furnished the standard text of the 
author. Ihm has made use of a greater number of MSS than did Roth, 
has collated them more accurately, and in his text has frequently 
returned to the readings of the better MSS, discarding the conjectures of 
earlier editors, a method of procedure which might well have been carried 
to even greater length than it has been. 

Ihm follows Traube in regarding as the archetype of the existing 
MSS the lost Fuldensis, written probably in rustic capitals, and used by 
Einhard in the preparation of the life of Charlemagne. This MS was 
loaned to Lupus Servatus, abbot of Ferridres, or a transcript of it was 
sent to him about 844, and is the source from which the numerous 
French MSS of the lives are derived, the Memmianus s. IX, written at 
Tours, the oldest and best of our MSS, being, perhaps, a direct copy of the 
transcript. Two other MSS, showing resemblances to the Memmianus 
but also divergences which make it unlikely that they were copied 
directly from the same MS as the Memmianus, are the Gudianus s. XI, 
the value of which is questioned by Ihm who doubts whether its superior 
readings were derived from the archetype, and the incomplete Vaticanus 
1904, s. XI-XIT, more accurate than the Gudianus but representing a 
copy of the transcript of the Fuldensis differing from the Memmianus. 
From a lost MS closely related to the Vaticanus Ihm derives a class 


Boox REvIEWs 851 


designated as X, represented in his collations by Laur. 68, 7, Paris. 
5801, Laur. 66, 39, Montepess. 117, all of the twelfth century, and the 
Hulsianus of the fourteenth century. Another and inferior class, 
descended in a different line from the copy of Servatus, is designated as 
Y, and from its numerous representatives Ihm has selected three MSS of 
the twelfth century, Paris. 6116, Paris. 5802, and Regius 15 C III of 
the British Museum. In addition to these sources the editor has drawn 
on the excerpts of Heiric of Auxerre of the ninth century and those of 
the Notre Dame MS of the thirteenth century. The late MSS are dis- 
regarded as representative of the archetype, though not infrequently 
readings from them are adopted in the text as happy conjectures of 
fifteenth-century scholars. 

The usefulness of the apparatus criticus is impaired by the necessity 
of consulting both apparatus and introduction for the readings even of 
the Memmianus, owing to the fact that the editor, to save space and 
repetition, has treated a number of general questions, including orthog- 
raphy, in the introduction. 

The editor shows familiarity with the various articles on Suetonius, 
but in spite of the wealth of critical material at his disposal, the number 
of significant changes from the text of Roth is inconsiderable, many 
though not all of them showing a return to the readings of the archetype, 
even to the extent of introducing new difficulties and new lacunae in 
place of the conjectures or readings of inferior MSS adopted, often with 
considerable probability in their favor, by Roth. 

In deference to the authority of archetype, inscriptions, or equally 
satisfactory evidence, some familiar names have disappeared; e.g., Iul. 
25 Gebenna has given place to Cebenna; Tib. 66 villa Jovis to villa 
Ionis; Claud. 2 Julio Antonio to Iullo Antonio; Nero 34 L. Agerinum 
to L. Agermum; Nero 50 Ecloge to Egloge, and everywhere Aenobar- 
bus to Ahenobarbus, Thrax to Thraex, Catthi to Chatti, Virgilius to 
Vergilius, etc. On the same basis a reasonable uniformity of spelling 
has been adopted and forms probably used by Suetonius have been 
restored in opposition to the consensus of MSS reading or in spite of 
orthographical vagaries. Thus incoho is everywhere read on the author- 
ity of Diomedes in place of inchoo, cena is everywhere substituted for 
caena, -tt- is read in the perfects rettuli, attult, etc. The editor has 
possibly erred in not adopting what seems to have been a practice of 
Suetonius, in imitation of Varro, of writing Hrodus, Hrianus, hrinoce- 
ros, since he is evidently convinced that they were so written by the 
author. The courage which leads an editor to write Ptolemaeus seven 
times in the face of an unvarying MSS tradition in favor of Ptolomaeus, 
to write Sameramin on the authority of a Sardinian inscription and of 
the Memmianus in which the form has been corrected by the second 
hand, and to assume that Suetonius invariably wrote the genitive of 


852 Boox REvIEws 


proper nouns in -ius with a single ὁ, in the face of the doubts that are 
even now being expressed as to Cicero’s unvarying adherence to this 
form, might well have carried him through this minor difficulty. 

Ihm has returned to the reading of the archetype in a number of 
cases in which the sense of the passage is either absolutely unaffected or 
only an insignificant change is introduced; e. g., Iul. 50, and in seven 
other places the form sestertium with numeral adverbs has been restored 
for conjectured sestertii or sestertio, Iul. 55 oratorem quem takes the 
place of the conjecture oratorum quem, Nero 22 prasini takes the place 
of prasinum, etc., but he has also repeatedly adopted conjectures or the 
readings of late MSS where at least a word can be said in favor of the 
older tradition, 6. g., Aug. eriperet of the archetype is certainly possible, 
Tib. 27 auctore eo senatum se audisse is not an impossible reading, Tib. 
59 remedium as a genitive plural occurs also in Apuleius, iota for epsilon 
iota in Greek words seems to be justified in Claud. 40, Dom. 10, etc., by 
the Graeco-Roman pun arci in Dom. 18 which is said in the text to be 
Greek, though no editor has ever paid any attention to the statement by 
writing it in Greek letters. 

In considerably more than a hundred passages the readings of late 
MSS are still retained, often where no name of a fifteenth-century 
scholar can be cited as the author of the happy conjecture, although we 
are told that the fifteenth-century MSS are worthless, and if anyone ven- 
tures to call attention to the fact that of necessity many of the readings 
of these MSS must be adopted in any edition of Suetonius, he is assumed 
to mean that the fifteenth-century MSS are superior to the Memmianus. 

The general appearance of the book is marred by the insertion in the 
text of various brackets and devices to indicate omittenda, supplenda, 
lacunae, and hopelessly corrupt passages. After once stating that he has 
everywhere adopted the single ὁ in the genitive of proper nouns in -tus, 
the editor should not print in the text fifty or more instances of the 
double letter with the second ¢ in brackets, nor indicate the insertion of 
a second ¢ in rettulit and of an h in Ahenobarbus by another form of 
bracket after informing us that he has everywhere inserted those letters. 
Above all these indications of “supplenda” should not be extended to 
include references to modern books as though they had ever formed a 
part of the archetype. Many such references are to some collection of 
fragments, e. g., Baehrens Fragmenta Poetarum Romanorum, and lead 
only to the information that the fragment in question is due to the pass- 
age in Suetonius from which one has just turned. 

The portraits of the different emperors at the beginning and end of 
the separate lives are but indifferently executed; the facsimiles of the 
Memmianus and of the Gudianus at the end of the volume are excel- 


lently done. 
ALBERT A. Howarp 
HarvarRp UNIVERSITY 


Boox REVIEws 853 


The Hibeh Papyrt. Part I. Edited with Translations and 
Notes by ΒΕΒΝΑΒΡ P. GRENFELL AND ARTHUR S. Hont. 
With ten plates. (Egypt Exploration Fund, Graeco-Roman 
Branch.) London, 1906. Pp. xiv+410. 45s. net. 


In the number and antiquity of the literary papyri discussed, Grenfell 
and Hunt’s Hibeh Papyri takes first rank among the fourteen volumes 
they have thus far published. One-third of the volume, which is reckoned 
a double volume in the publications of the Fund, is concerned with clas- 
sical fragments, new and old, all dating from the third century Β. o. 
Lysias and Epicharmus are represented among the new pieces, and per- 
haps also Sophocles (7'yro), Euripides (Oeneus), Philemon, and Hippias. 
There are also tragic, comic, and epic fragments even more difficult to 
assign. Not less interesting are the pieces of Homer, which present the 
strange deviations from the vulgate text previously exhibited by a few 
Ptolemaic fragments, notably those of Geneva. These are the occasion 
of a re-examination by the editors of the problem presented by these 
“eccentric” texts, with especial reference to Arthur Ludwich’s recent 
treatise on the subject, in which he dismisses them as perversions of the 
vulgate, instead of being representatives of an equal or earlier type of 
text. From Ludwich’s positions the Oxford editors dissent, pointing out 
that the increasing mass of eccentric evidence bears heavily upon his 
theory, and cannot be set aside as due to chance, while the currency, 
especially in inland Egypt, of non-vulgate texts prior to 200 8. o. must 
be freely admitted, whatever the age of the vulgate text itself. Grenfell 
and Hunt suspect the Alexandrian Museum of having had a hand in 
promoting the vulgate text to pre-eminence, if not of actually shaping 
that text. 

Texts of nearly one hundred documents of the third century B. c., 
together with descriptions of half as many more, constitute the bulk of 
the volume. The first of these, a calendar for the Saite nome, is of especial 
interest for its connection with the astronomy of Eudoxus, by a follower 
of which it seems to have been composed. Royal ordinances, legal docu- 
ments, letters, receipts, and accounts make up the remainder of a volume 
extraordinary in consisting exclusively of papyri of the third century B. o. 
Three appendices deal with the Macedonian and Egyptian calendars, the 
system of dating by the years of the king, and the eponymous priest- 
hoods from 301-221 s.c. There are the usual elaborate indices. 

The story of the finding of the Hibeh papyri gives an interesting 
glimpse of the papyrus excavator’s method at its best. The Oxford exca- 
vators were drawn to the site in 1902, when a papyrus dealer came to them 
in the Fayfim offering for sale a mass of broken papyrus cartonnage. 
This, it was ascertained, came from the vicinity of Hibeh on the east bank 
of the Nile, not far above Benisuéf. Thither the excavators shortly 


864 Boox REVIEWS 


repaired, and devoted to the site the three weeks remaining of that season, 
returning to it for a month in the following winter, 1903. The papyri 
published in this volume were derived from mummy-cartonnage in part 
purchased from the itinerant dealer, in part dug up by Grenfell and Hunt 
in 1902. Those discovered in 1908 have not yet been examined. The site 
had suffered much from indiscriminate digging, the necropolis having 
been largely excavated by a native dealer in 1895-96. From his finds, it 
now appears, came certain literary pieces, notably three non-vulgate 
Homers, purchased by Grenfell and Hunt in Cairo in 1896 and pub- 
lished by them in that year, since further pieces of the same rolls were 
found on the spot in 1902. 

Hibeh has been identified with the Egyptian Teuzoi, but its Graeco- 
Roman name has not been discovered. Hipponon and Agkuronpolis are 
possibilities, and between them it is probable that the remaining papyri 
from this fruitful site will make it possible to decide. Meantime the 
disastrous consequences of leaving papyrus sites to be ransacked by 
ignorant natives (who usually throw away papyrus-cartonnage as worth- 
less), combined with the results of less than two months’ excavating, 
should so stimulate interest in the Graeco-Roman Branch that the opera- 
tions of Grenfell and Hunt in Egypt, now given over for lack of funds, 


may be promptly and extensively resumed. 
Epaak J. GoopsPrEp 
Tue UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


Sophoclis Cantica. Digessit ΟΥΤΟ ScHROEDER. Leipzig: Teub- 
ner, 1907. Pp. vi+86. M. 2.40. 


Professor Schroeder follows up his Aeschyli Cantica by a similar 
metrical analysis of the choruses of Sophocles. Even those who are 
unable to accept the “new Metrik” will be glad to see its principles sys- 
tematically applied on a large scale to the texts. These schemes are 
certainly less intelligible to the average student than those of Schmidt 
in Jebb’s Sophocles. There is no space here to inquire what is their 
rhythmical méaning, and to what precise differences in viva voce practice 
they point. Are we to accept literally the scheme for O. T. 463 ff.? 

τίς ὄντιν᾽ ἁ θεσπιέπει - 
α Δελφὶς εἶπε πέτρα 
ἄρρητ᾽ ἀρρήτων τελέσαν - 
τα φοινίαισι χερσίν; 


Is there no hold or pause on ἃ, for example? Do the four short lines 
perceptibly break the unity of recitation, or are they written so merely to 


save space? 
Paut SHOREY 


Boox REVIEWS 355 


Topographie der Stadt Rom in Alterthum. Von H. Jorpan. 
Erster Band, dritte Abtheilung, bearbeitet von Ch. Halsen. 
Berlin: Weidmann, 1907. Pp. xxiv-+709. M. 16. 


When Jordan died in 1887, the completion of his famous work was 
intrusted to Hfilsen who had just been appointed second secretary of the 
German Institute at Rome. His brilliant success as an epigraphist and 
topographer during the twenty years that have since elapsed is familiar 
to all students, and the long delay in the appearance of this book is 
easily explained when one considers the manifold duties-and activities of 
the author and the constantly increasing additions to our knowledge of 
the subject, no smal] share of which is due to Hfilsen himself. The 
delay due to the latter cause is shown by the fact that, while the printing 
began in 1901 and advance sheets of more than two hundred pages were 
in my hands iu 1903, the book has only just appeared. 

The materia! left by Jordan was neither sufficient nor suitable for the 
completion of his work, and Hfilsen therefore determined to pursue his 
own method independently, so that the present volume is entirely his. 
It contains the detailed description and discussion of the topography and 
monuments of Rome except those that had been so treated by Jordan 
himself, namely the Forum, the imperial fora, the Forum Boarium and 
the Velabrum, the bridges and the aqueducts. With Lanciani’s Forma 
Urbis Romae, it represents the most important contribution to the sub- 
ject that has been made for a generation, and presents the views of the 
most authoritative of Roman topographers, based upon his own investiga- 
tions. Nothing strikes the reader so forcibly as the fact that nothing has 
been taken on another’s authority. Al] the sources seem to have been 
worked over anew, and the amount of labor involved can be appreciated 
only by those to whom the field is somewhat familiar. Furthermore, the 
sources are far more extensive than in Jordan’s day, for Htilsen and Lan- 
ciani have been foremost in recognizing the amount and value of the 
information with regard to the monuments of Rome contained in the 
material of various sorts which has been left us by the architects and 
artists of the Renaissance and later centuries. This material has already 
led to the solution of several problems. 

It is impossible here to enter into any criticism in detail of the many 
new and interesting views advanced in this book, and I will content my- 
self with noting a few of those that have to do with the topography of 
the southern and central portion of the Campus Martius. In the Notitia 
is mentioned a Crypta Balbi which was naturally connected with the 
theatre of Balbus. In the via Calderari, immediately northwest of the 
theatre, remains of a two-storied structure existed in the sixteenth century 
which were identified with this Crypta. A few ruins still stand, but from 
the drawings and descriptions of Serlio and Bellori it appears that the 


856 Boox REVIEWS 


structure was open on all sides and consisted of colonnades and inner 
walls with niches, and interior rooms apparently without entrances. 
This seemed to justify the name, and the position close to the stage 
end of the theatre seemed to suggest its purpose. The building is indi- 
cated on a fragment of the Marble Plan but without name, and of course 
there was no certainty that it was the Crypta, although topographers have 
accepted Bellori’s identification without question. Htilsen, however, on 
the strength of the ordinary use of crypta which means a closed and more 
or less subterranean structure, refuses to accept the current view, and . 
identifies the ruins with the porticus Minucia vetus, a restoration by 
Domitian of the porticus Minucia of 1108... This porticus is mentioned 
in the Regionary Catalogue next to the porticus Philippi, and therefore 
Hilsen maintains that its usual location near the piazza Montanara must 
be given up. Furthermore, the calendars seem to show that games in 
honor of Hercules Custos were celebrated near the porticus Minucia, 
and the transfer of this building necessitates a change in the location of 
the temple. Heretofore it has been supposed to have stood at the east 
end of the circus Flaminius, but Hilsen places it at the west end. Since 
Ovid speaks of the temple of Bellona as standing on the opposite side of 
the circus from the temple of Hercules Custos, the temple of this goddess 
also must be changed from the position hitherto assigned it at the north 
end of the circus to the east side. Thus the arrangement of the district 
about the circus Flaminius is materially altered. 

A little to the north, the identification of the Hecatostylon with the 
remains of walls at the south end of the porticus Pompeiana is rejected, 
and this building is assigned to a location on the north side of the porticus. 
So, too, the current identification—always doubtful but usually accepted— 
of the basilica Neptuni with the remains of the great building that is 
part of the modern Bourse in the piazza di Pietra, is definitely thrown 
aside and Hilsen maintains that this structure is without doubt the 
Hadrianeum, a temple built by Antoninus Pius in 145 a. p. in memory of 
his father. Instead of the ordinary view that the Gymnasium was a 
separate building, erected by Nero on the site afterward occupied by the 
Stadium of Domitian, Hfilsen believes it to have been merely a part of 
the thermae of Nero. He also maintains stoutly that there was a second 
cult-center of Mars in the northern part of the Campus Martius near the 
river, in addition to the ancient ara Martis near the piazza Venezia. For 
a criticism of this theory the reader is referred to Vol. III, p. 65, of this 
journal. 

These illustrations will suffice to indicate how important the results 
of the author’s conclusions often are, and it is evident that our maps of 
the ancient city must be considerably changed in some regions if these 
conclusions are valid. It is probable that the attention of topographers 
will be directed for some time to their careful examination. So far as I 


Book REVIEWS 857 


have been able to subject them to such an examination, they have in most 
cases carried conviction—as was of course to be expected. 

In a work of this sort, where there are so many hundreds of references 
of the most diverse kinds, it seems to be impossible to avoid errors of 
citation and there are a number in this book. They are usually of a sort 
to occasion but little inconvenience, and are relatively of no importance 
whatever. The exhaustive knowledge and cfitical acumen of the author 


arouse continual admiration. 
S. B. P. 


Griechische Geschichte bis zur Schlacht bei Chaeronea. Band 3; 
Teil 2. ‘Der peloponnesische Krieg.” Von Grora Busott. 
Gotha: Perthes, 1904. Pp. 591-1640. M. 18. 


This volume which contains over one thousand pages is devoted 
entirely to the Peloponnesian War. In addition to a detailed table of 
contents, there are extremely useful chronological tables in which the 
events are assigned to months or seasons. In some respects there is a lack 
of uniformity. For example, one may well wonder why the production of 
Aristophanes’ Lysistrata and Thesmophoriazousae is passed over, when 
such plays as the Birds, Knights, and Peace are included. 

The plan of relegating to the generous footnotes criticisms and sum- 
maries of opposing theories may have some justification in the strictly 
narrative part of the work as a concession to a “wider circle of readers;” 
but it is certainly distracting in the chapter devoted to a discussion of the 
sources, where in many cases the notes are more useful than the text, 
which often merely serves to acquaint the reader with the subjects treated 
in the copious footnotes. The causes of the war are set forth clearly and 
due emphasis is placed on the commercial rivalry between Athens and 
Corinth, and the Athenian policy of coercing Megara so as to protect 
herself against invasion. Busolt has no theories to champion but contents 
himself with presenting the facts of the political and military history as 
brought out by the best modern research. He is sparing and sane in his 
criticisms of policies and plans of campaign. In regard to the Sicilian 
expedition he in the main approves of the views of Nicias, adding a few 
references to other writers who have undertaken to justify Athenian policy 
in Sicily. His conservative attitude toward conflicting modern theories is 
well illustrated in his discussion of the “Four Hundred” where he has 
done more than any of his predecessors to reconcile the opposing views of 
Koehler and Meyer and their followers. Occasionally his desire to present 
all the theories leaves the reader in doubt as to his own opinion. This is 
particularly noticeable in his treatment of Theramenes. He fully recog- 
nizes the existence of the Moderate party in Athens. The English reader 
is likely to be confused sometimes by his terminology. As a rule he 


858 Boox REVIEWS 


describes the extreme oligarchs as radicals, though he constantly refers 
to the extreme democrats as radical. 

It is perhaps to be regretted that the limitations of space are partially 
responsible for his deferring the treatment of the “geistige Kampfe” to 
the next volume. Certainly the Sicilian expedition and the revolution of 
the “Four Hundred” are much more intelligible if preceded by a discus- 
sion of the intellectual life of the period. An excellent feature of the 
work is the constant endeavor to keep before the reader the antecedents 
and personalities of even the less important public men. 

In a work of such magnitude it is inevitable that each reader should 
find views that he cannot accept but it is beyond the scope of this review 
to record such dissents. In the matter of citing authorities Busolt is 
particularly generous and this volume, like its predecessors, will be the 
indispensable companion of al] students of Greek history. 

R. J. Bonner 

Tae UNIVERSITY oF CHICAGO 


Demosthenes und Anaximenes: eine Untersuchung. Von WIL- 
HELM ΝΊΤΒΟΗΕ, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1906. 
Pp. 111. M. 2. 


This important treatise opens with a brief statement in regard to 
Anaximenes of Lampsacus, the variety and character of his literary 
activity, his relations to the Macedonian court, the peculiar history of his 
writings. It was long supposed that these existed only in fragments; 
then largely through the penetration of Spengel his Rhetoric was found 
classed as a work of Aristotle and apparently preserved through this error, 
and now again according to Nitsche Anaximenes regains his own from 
another source. The recently discovered commentary of Didymus upon 
Demosthenes has furnished much new evidence upon the relations of 
Demosthenes and Anaximenes and apparently gives good ground for the 
main contention of Nitsche’s monograph, that Anaximenes is the real 
author of some of the works now included among the writings of the 
great orator. Several orations under the name of Demosthenes have long 
been regarded as spurious, some even from ancient times. Schaefer, some 
years ago, recognized that at least two of these were by the same author, 
but the identity of this orator remained unknown. Through the evidence 
presented by the Didymus commentary, supplemented by minute exami- 
nation of the orations themselves, Nitsche seems to prove that Anaximenes 
is the author of the fourth Philippic, the πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τὴν Φιλίππου 
and the περὶ συντάξεως. How did these speeches of Anaximenes become 
incorporated among the genuine orations of Demosthenes? Nitsche 
believes that Demosthenes’ nephew Demochares soon after Demosthenes’ 


-_Boox REvIEws 359 


death gave to his friend Anaximenes the task of making a new and com- 
plete publication of the works of Demosthenes. This publication of his 
works was prompted largely by the desire to arouse new interest in the 
cause which Demosthenes had defended. As assistance toward this end 
Anaximenes, the master of imitation, composed and inserted three new 
orations, a pious fraud and one easy to accomplish in those uncritical 
times. The προοίμια are also the work of Anaximenes. Swoboda had 
already proved that they were not composed by Demosthenes. With the 
help of the Didymus commentary, says Nitsche, we know the author. The 
proof is less obvious in the case of the letters, but the hand of Anaximenes 
can be seen in these, and also elsewhere, e. g., the first speech against 
Aristogiton. The treatise closes with a brief reference to the new edition 
of Anaximenes’ works by Wendland (1905), and to Rehdantz’s Philippics 
of Demosthenes recently re-edited by Blass. 
THEopore C. Burcess 
BraDLEY POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 
Peoria, Illinois 


The Menexenus of Plato. Edited with Introduction and Notes 
by J. A. SHawyeR, M.A. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906. 
Crown 8vo., pp. xxxi+49. $0.50. 


This little book reproduces Burnet’s Oxford text of the Menexenus,e 
adding a brightly written Introduction, in which the editor treats briefly 
of such matters as the occasion of the dialogue, its authenticity, the 
nature of the λόγος ἐπιτάφιος, its relation to history, and (summarizing 
Jebb) the growth of oratory and rhetoric; and concludes with brief notes 
following the text. There is no Index to text or notes, but the edition 
will serve the purposes of the student who desires to give the dialogue a 
hasty reading. Most of the errors noted in a rapid perusal have already 
been specified (by Professor Newhall, Class. Jour. II. 318) and need not 
be enumerated here. In his note on 238 e the editor says: “Plato wrote 
indifferently τὸ ὅσιον καὶ μή and τὸ ὅσιον καὶ τὸ μή. Cf. Huthyphro 9 c, 
12 e.” This might lead the student to conclude that instances of the 
latter usage were frequent; in fact they are rare. An interesting dis- 
cussion of 238 c d, which corrects Shawyer’s note ad loc., is to be found 
in Hirzel’s Themis, Dike und Verwandtes, p. 264, note. The editor 
appears not to have read Wendland’s “Die Tendenz des platonischen 
Menexenus,” Hermes XXXVI, and Trendelenburg’s Erlauterungen zu 
Platos Menexenus (Berlin, 1905); but his book will doubtless be cordially 
welcomed by American teachers of. Greek. 

W. A. Herper 


WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY 


860 Boox REVIEWS 


Der Enoplios. Ein Beitrag zur griechischen Metrik. Von. Dr. 
E. HERBKENRATH. Leipzig: Teubner, 1906. Pp. ix. + 186. 
M. 6. 


The extraordinary industry and ingenuity bestowed upon this book 
make it, in accordance with the author's hope, a valuable repertory of 
metrical facts, even for those who cannot accept all of its conclusions. 
Starting from two forms of the Enoplios—Archilochus’ Epacpovidn XapiAae 
and Cratinus’ "Epacpovidy Βάθιππε which he proves to be equivalent by col- 
lecting al] cases of their responsion—Dr. Herkenrath analyzes the entire 
body of extant Greek lyric and choric verse in order to establish two con- 
clusions: (1) That Greek poetry allowed great freedom of equivalence and 
responsion, or, as he puts it, that the difference between a dissyllabic and 
a monosyllabic arsis (Senkung) concerns Rhythmtk only, not Metrik. (2) 
That Greek lyric verses and strophes are largely composed of variations, 
extensions, curtailments, and combinations of a few favorite clauses or 
movements such as the Enoplios, the ithyphallic, the dochmiac, the Teles- 
illeion, the Praxilleion, the Reizianum. 

The first conclusion is a priori probable and is apparently confirmed 
by the unamended (or rightly amended!) tradition of the texts. There is 
no reason except convention or ὖθος for precise syllabic responsion in any 
poetry. The extent to which it may have been required by the tradition 
of a particular poetical form or the practice of a particular poet, is a 
question of special historical philology rather than of pure Metrik. Such 
freedoms of responsion as occur are as readily explained by the methods 
of Rossbach or Christ as by the new fashion of scanning by quadrisy]- 
labic or larger groups. They are no argument for either system. 

The second proposition is also true in the general statement (p. 167) 
“dass sich im Strophenbau gewisse Gewohnheiten erkennen lassen.” But 
in the application it is liable to degenerate into a mere metrico-mathe- 
matical schematism bearing no relation to actual rhythmic utterance. 

There is obviously no limit to the combinations which may be made 
if we may assume thirty-two forms of the,“ Enoplios” (Schroeder), substi- 
tute dactyls in the ithyphallic, call ~ - ~ | - ~ - ἃ Telesilleion (p. 13), 
----.--»--- a dochmiac, and -- ~ - ~ - ~ - ἃ Glyconic (pp. 17 ff.). But 
all metrical analogies and ‘“Gewohnheiten” discovered by these purely 
schematic methods, must be verified by rhythmical considerations. I do 
not doubt that some of Dr. Herkenrath’s groupings are valid rhythmically, 
and that he has satisfied his own ear of the validity of them all. But like 
others of the “New School,” he assumes that the mere metrical analysis 
will be sufficient to convince his readers. It will not. To take a test case: 
His method leads him (p. 19) to establish an elaborate parallel between 
Eurip. Herakles 638 ff., and the “ganz &hnliches Lied,’ Aeschyl. Ag. 
681 ff. Now these two odes may be like in terms of “gl. B,” “gl. X,” 


Book ReEvIEws 361 


“gl.+en B,” “en B+ Reiz,” etc. They are not in the least “like” in 
actual viva voce rhythmic reading. And there is something wrong in a 
system that identifies them. Dr. Herkenrath would probably not deny 
that similar or identical metrical groups may have a totally different 
rhythmical] value in different contexts. But in the interest of working out 
his system he appears to forget it. 

The valuable index is at first sight difficult to use owing to a number 
of arbitrary but ingenious abbreviations which when understood serve to 
present an enormous amount of information in brief compass. 

Paut SHorey 


Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemderzett. 
Mit Evnschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in 
Agypten verfassten Inschriften. Laut- und Wortlehre. 
Von Dr. Epwin Mayser. Leipzig: Teubner, 1906. M. 14. 


I undertake to notice briefly this book not as a specialist in the 
field of papyri literature, but as one of that larger number who have 
a keen interest in the history of the Greek κοινή, and wish to survey the 
important facts to be gleaned from the papyri, without attempting to 
follow in detail the formidable and ever-increasing mass of papyri pub- 
lications. For all such this grammar of the papyri of the Ptolemaic 
period must be reckoned a most welcome and invaluable aid. It furnishes 
an exhaustive and orderly exhibit of the facts so far as they fall under the 
heads of Lautlehre and Wortlehre, the latter including Flexion and 
Stammbildung. In the introduction and under Stammbildung are also 
mentioned many peculiarities of vocabulary, words otherwise poetical or 
dialectic, new words, and new or unusual meanings. The Syntax is, we 
assume, reserved for a subsequent volume. The printing and general 
execution of the work are excellent but for one fault which it shares with 
too many other, especially German, publications. The numbered sections 
are long, with numerous subdivisions, sometimes covering a half-dozen 
pages or more, and the resulting inconvenience in looking up the cross- 
references is not even mitigated by repeating the section numbers at the 
top of each page. 

On the general question of the source of the κοινή, the author’s inves- 
tigation has led him to the same position as that held by Thumb and the 
majority of the scholars at present, namely that it is a modified Attic. 
But he thinks Thumb has erred in seeking connection with the most 
vulgar type of colloquial Attic, as represented in the vase inscriptions. 
Certainly it was not this, but the Attic of literature and more cultivated 
speech, which set the standard. With its spread this was more and 
more affected by colloquial usage, not pre-eminently that of Athens, but 
by that of various parts of the Greek world. As regards the traces of the 


862 Boox REvIEws 


old non-Attic dialects the author concludes that, with the exception of 
Ionic, they are so slight as to be negligible, and even the Ionic element 
he is disposed to reduce to the minimum. And if, in the case of certain 
forms, his skepticism of their ultimate Ionic source seems overdrawn, it 
is obviously true, and quite natural, that the Egyptian κοινή followed the 
Attic norm more closely and was less affected by distinctively non-Attic 
influences than we find to be the case with the contemporaneous κοινή 
inscriptions from other parts of the Greek world, where non- Attic dialects 
were indigenous. | 

But there was no lack of organic change, which in some respects went 
on more rapidly than in Attic, for example in vowel pronunciation, where 
the leveling in quantity, due to the substitution of a stress-accent, and 
the initial stages in the movement toward itacism, are evidenced by wide- 
spread confusion in spelling from the third and second centuries Β. o. 
Even the sporadic cases of confusion, as between ἡ and v, or οἱ and v, have 
more significance than the author seems disposed to accord them. They 
show that the more advanced stages of itacism were not unknown in the 
extreme vulgar pronunciation, though not yet widely current. 

In all such matters, too numerous to comment upon farther, the book 
offers an unrivaled collection of material, and is certain to be recognized 
᾿ as one of the chief sources for the study of the κοινή. 


Cart Darina Boos 
ΤῊΝ UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


De quelques innovations de la déclinatson latine. Par A. 
MEILLET. Paris: Klincksiek, 1906. Pp. 47. Fr. 2. 


After a chapter upon the general conditions which account for the 
“instabilité6 des formes latines” the author reviews the principal innova- 
tions which characterize the Latin declensiona]l system. Although the 
history of most of these is not subject to controversy, there are several 
new suggestions, of which we note with interest, if not with complete 
conviction of its correctness, the contention that the -em of hostem, etc., 
is not due to the analogy of consonant stems, but comes from -tm by 


phonetic change. 
C. D. B. 


Petite phonétique comparée des principales langues européennes. 
Par Pau Passy. Leipsic et Berlin: Teubner, 1906. Pp. 132. 


This little manual by the most eminent French phonetist addresses 
itself primarily to teachers of the modern languages, and deals mainly 
with the pronunciation of French, English, and German. But such a 
minute and competent analysis of language as actually spoken cannot 


fail to be of interest and value to all students of language. δ 
. Ὁ. Β. 


Boox REVIEWS 868 


ΠΕΡῚ ΙΕΡΩΣΥΝΗΣ (De Sacerdotio) of St. John Chrysostom. 
By J. ARBUTHNOT NargN. (Cambridge Patristic Texts.) 
Cambridge University Press, 1906. Pp. lviii+192. 6s. 


Chrysostom’s treatise On the Priesthood is recognized as the most 
important ancient discussion of the Christian ministry. It is of further 
interest as bearing upon a notable crisis in Chrysostom’s career, when he 
beguiled his friend Basil into accepting the episcopal office, while he 
refused it for himself, as a dignity of which he was not worthy. The 
treatise, while written some years after the action, is in a sense an apology 
for it, being cast in the form of a dialogue between Chrysostom and 
Basil, upon the dignity and duties of the priestly office. 

The present edition is designed for the use of theological students, 
for whom the work possesses a natural interest and value. Dr. Nairn’s 
edition is not, however, a mere reprint of the treatise with a few notes. 
On the contrary, he has subjected the chief manuscripts to a critical 
examination, upon which he has based his text and apparatus of readings. 
These thirty manuscripts are listed and described, and the way is pointed 
to other manuscripts of the treatise still awaiting examination. The 
introduction includes further a survey of the earlier editions of the De 
Sacerdotio, of the several versions into which it has passed, and a brief 
discussion of its occasion, and date, which is placed between 386, when 
Chrysostom became a presbyter, and 890, soon after which date Jerome 
makes use of the treatise. The text is accompanied by brief notes, and 
there is an index of the more important Greek words. The entire absence 
of any suitable lexicon to accompany the study of the text recalls the 
important enterprise of Dr. Redpath and Professor Swete, who have 
recently undertaken the preparation of a patristic lexicon. 


Epaar J. GOopsPEED 
THe UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


The Tragedies of Seneca. Translated into English verse by 
Frank Justus MILLER. Chicago: The University of Chicago 
Press, 1907. Pp.x+534. $3 net. 


The present generation, accustomed to the power of Stephen Phillips 
and the artistic charm of Mackaye, is but little moved by the lifeless 
rhetoric of Seneca. His moralistic platitudes seem tedjous, his epigrams 
and paradoxes trite, and his sensational scenes melodramatic, and gory 
as the sands of the Colosseum. Yet Professor Miller in his excellent 
translation of the tragedies has succeeded in accomplishing the task of 
giving new life and interest to these products of the rhetoric of the early 
Roman Empire. Not only has he treated the plays with rare apprecia- 
tion, but he has been effectively aided by his familiarity with modern 


864 Boox REVIEWS 


literature. Here and there some poet’s phrase enriches the original with 
its associations, such as Phthlegethon’s “waves of fire” (Thy. 74), or “the 
sceptered king” (Oed. 242). He has also rendered the tragedies more 
enjoyable to English readers by adding comparative analyses of the 
Senecan dramas and the Greek originals, and his mythological index 
will help to make them more intelligible to those whose memory for 
the details of the myths is fleeting. Professor Manly’s introductory 
essay on the influence of Seneca upon the early English drama, interest- 
ing though it be, is too brief to deal adequately with this subject. 

_ Professor Miller has used Leo’s text (Berlin, 1878-79) as the basis of 
his translation, and has noted carefully all variations from it. Where he 
differs from Leo, he has almost always taken the conservative position. 
He has often refused to accept conjectures, as Bothe’s correction of cibus 
(Phaedr. 208) to scyphus, and Leo’s assignment of Medea’s words si 
regnas, tube (Med. 194) to Creon, as well as his more radical changes, as 
in Phaedr. 1118. On the other hand, his insertion of haud in Tro. 982 
is quite unwarranted, and he has too often rejected the reliable Codex 
Etruscus in favor of the untrustworthy interpolator, as in luxus for 
cursus (Phaedr. 449), and in the words Medea fugiam ? (Med. 171), where 
Leo, following Εἰ, reads NUT. Medea~- MED. Fiam., a terseness and 
pregnancy of expression far more characteristic of Seneca, 

In his meters the translator has been singularly successful. In the 
speeches he has used the iambic pentameter, except in the Medea, where 
he has imitated the trimeter of the original. This he regards as an 
experiment of doubtful success, but when once the long line has grown 
familiar, it reproduces effectually the dignity and stateliness of the Latin. 
Some of the choral meters also are happily imitated, as the anapaests in 
Oed. 436 f.— 


A furious Maenad, the comrade of Bacchus, 
In garment of fawn-skin conducted the god; 


and the lightness of the epithalamium in Med. 75 f. is well rendered in 

The fairest of girls is she, 

The Athenian maidens outshining, 

Or the Spartan maiden with armor laden, 

No burden of war declining. 
The effect of the asclepiads of the invocation in this epithalamium is 
successfully given by dactyls, but the iambic tetrameters, which take the 
place of the asclepiads in Thy. 122 f., are too short and do not reproduce 
the stately movement of this solemn entrance. Unfortunately no attempt 
has been made to imitate the trochees which express Creon’s terror at 
the recollection of his interview with the Pythia (Oed. 223 f.). 

A translation of Seneca’s tragedies must be in the main a translation 
of wordy declamation and detailed description. It is hard to prevent the 
characters of these dramas from ranting, but Professor Miller has suc- 
ceeded in avoiding exaggerations, and in restraining the tone of the 


Book REVIEWS 865 


speeches where the bombast might easily become ridiculous. He has 
been able to save pathos from being swallowed up in rhetoric, as in 
Medea’s plea to Creon (Med. 208 f.), and in the dignified translation of 
Oedipus’ prayer (Oed. 247 f.) the doomed monarch seems every inch a 
king. In the long descriptive passages the translator has usually suc- 
ceeded in imitating the effect of weirdness and mystery, which is so 
characteristic of Seneca’s descriptions. The beginning of Theseus’ story 
of his descent into Hades (H. F. 664 f.) is a fair example— 
The realm of hated Dis 

Opes wide its mouth; the high cliff spreads apart, 

And in a mighty cavern yawns a pit 

With jaws portentous, huge, precipitous. 

Here “a watery gleam of daylight follows in,” which is a worthy ren- 
dering of tenuis relictae lucis a tergo nitor, and the almost Miltonic 
description of the “water of oblivion,” placido quieta labitur Lethe vado 
is happily imitated in “with peaceful shallows gentle Lethe glides.” 
Some sacred grove was a favorite subject for such pictures, and Seneca 
used all his powers to describe the one which stood behind the palace at 
Argos (Thy. 650 f.). Professor Miller’s translation of this bit of word- 
painting is a masterpiece. 

An oozy stream springs there beneath the shade, 

And sluggish creeps along within the swamp, 

Just like the ugly waters of the Styx 

Which bind the oaths of heaven. "Tis said that here 

At dead of night the hellish gods make moan. 

And all the grove resounds with clanking chains, 

And mournful howl of ghosts. Here may be seen 

Whatever, but to hear of, causes fear. 
By skilful use of adjectives he quite reproduces, and even enhances, 
the gloomy atmosphere of the original. 

Perhaps the sententiae and the epigrams with which these tragedies 
sparkle present the greatest difficulty to the translator. It is hard to be 
as terse in English as in Latin. Professor Miller has, however, usually 
been successful. His “No crime’s avenged save by a greater crime”’ is 
as brief and pointed as Seneca’s scelera non ulcisceris, nist vinces, and 
the antithesis of 


Age, anime, fac quod nulla posteritas probet, 
Sed nulla taceat (Thy. 192, 193.) 


is well rendered in 


But come, my soul, do what no coming age 
Shall ne’er approve—or e’er forget. 


On the other hand, the brevity and balance of leve est miserias ferre, 
perferre est grave (Thy. 307) are lost in 


"Tis easy to bear hardship for a time; 
But to endure it long is an irksome task; 


866 Boox REVIEWS 


and the lines 
Never has for long 
Unbridled power been able to endure, 
But lasting sway the self-controlled enjoy 


lack the terseness of Seneca’s 


Violenta nemo imperia continuit diu, 
moderata durant. (T7'ro. 258, 259.) 


Occasionally the translator fails to bring out the full force and exact 
meaning of the original. So the lines 


The more should fortune’s favorite . . . . fear the gods 
Who have uplifted him above his mates 


do not quite express the thought contained in metuentem deos nimium 
faventes (Tro. 262, 263), where the main idea seems to lie, not in devs, but 
in nimium faventes. It is not the gods that Pyrrbus is advised to fear, 
but the excessive prosperity which they have bestowed on him, and the 
impending φθόνος. In the same way the full ghastliness of Thy. 277, 278: 


Liberos avidus pater 
' gaudensque laceret et suos artus edat 


is lost in the translation 
Let once again 
A sire with joyous greed his children rend 
And hungrily devour thetr flesh. 


Thyestes is to devour his own flesh in devouring the children. But such 
instances are rare and unimportant. 

Professor Miller has written a truly poetical translation, and one which 
will stand the test of time. He has skilfully reproduced the merits of 
the tragedies, and has carefully avoided exaggerating their defects. He 
has translated thoughts, not words, and has rendered the spirit as well as 
the content of the original, using to advantage his knowledge of poetry, 
and his mastery of metrical forms. His translation seems destined to 
stimulate a new interest in these old dramas, which have so important a 


place in the history of European literature. 
Davip Maaieg, JR. 
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 


Altgriechische Plastik. Von Dr. WILHELM LERMANN. Munich: 
Beck, 1907. Pp. xiv-+231, with 20 colored plates, and 79 
halftones in the text. M. 30. 


This handsome quarto is devoted to the history of sculpture on the 
Greek mainland from its beginnings in the seventh century down to 
about the middle of the fifth century, n.c. The scope of the work may 


Boox REVIEWS 367 


be inferred from the titles of the chapters, which are as follows: 1, 
Archaic Sculpture in Poros; IT, III, The Nude Male Figure and the 
Draped Female Figure in Archaic Art; IV, The “Archaic Smile;” V, VI, 
The Rendering of the Hair on Male and Female Figures of Earlier 
Greek Art; VII, VIII, The Nude Male Figure and the Female Figure 
in the Transitional Period; IX, Greek Reliefs in the Earlier Period; 
X, Greek Pediment Sculptures. 

The author, Dr. Lermann, is unknown to me. He avows himeelf a 
disciple of the modern school of Greek archaeologists, as whose chiefs he 
names Brunn, Lange, and Furtwangler—the school which studies Greek 
art as art, and not chiefly as a branch of classical philology or antiquities. 
He has evidently received a thorough training, and although for parts of 
his work he acknowledges special] indebtedness to predecessors, as Lange 
and Lechat, he everywhere writes with the assurance of mastery. If his 
text lacks the novelty and illumination of Lange’s great essay on “The 
Rendering of the Human Figure in Earlier Greek Art,” it may be com- 
mended for numerous valuable detailed observations and for prevailing 
good judgment. . 

What lends the book especial distinction and makes it indispensable 
to any well-equipped library is the series of twenty colored plates giving 
in actual size the painted patterns on the dresses of the archaic female 
statues of the Athenian acropolis. The originals of these plates were 
executed by Dr. Lermann himself in 1904 at a cost of several months’ 
exacting labor. The task seems to have been performed with admirable 
fidelity. The result is an invaluable record of a precious group of facts 


illustrating the polychromy of Greek sculpture. 
F. B. ΤΆΒΒΕΙ,, 


Scopas et Praxitéle. Par ΜΑΧΙΜῈ CoLuienon. Paris: Librairie 
Plon, 1907. Pp. 175, and 24 full-page illustrations. Fr. 
4.50. 


This is one of a series of popular little books entitled “1,65 Maitres 
de ]’Art,” which are coming out concurrently with the similar series of 
“Les Grands Artistes.” As its subtitle indicates, it deals not only with 
Scopas and Praxiteles, but with Greek sculpture generally from the 
beginning of the fourth century Β. o. to the time of Alexander. M. Col- 
lignon, author of the excellent Histoire de la sculpture grecque, knows 
his subject well. He makes few positive mistakes, inclines to be interro- 
gative regarding rash theories, and writes with a characteristically French 
charm of style. The body of his text is divested of all learned apparatus, 
but an eight-page bibliography at the end gives ample guidance to an 


inquiring student. 
F. B. ΤΑΒΒΕΙΙ, 


868 Boox REVIEWS 


The Art Institute of Chicago: Illustrated Catalogue of the 
Antiquities and Casts of Ancient Sculpture in the Elbridge 
G. Hall and other collections. Part I, Oriental and Early 
Greek Art; Part II, Early Greek Art. By ALFRED ἘΜΕΕ- 
son. Chicago, 1906, 1907. Pp. 237, with 31 plates and 


numerous text illustrations. 


The title of Dr. Emerson’s catalogue is somewhat misleading, for with 
the exception of two pages devoted to a summary description of original 
Egyptian antiquities, the two parts which have been issued are concerned 
only with casts of ancient works. Probably the later parts will justify 
the double title. The casts of works of oriental. art are very briefly 
described, the greater part of the two volumes (pp. 33-237) being devoted 
to casts of early Greek sculpture, down to about the middle of the fifth 
century. Here the treatment is much fuller. After an excellent “Brief 
Account of the History of Greek Sculpture” (pp. 33-58), the separate 
casts are described in rough chronological order. The description often 
goes far beyond the monument under discussion. So the accounts of the 
Lion Gate at Mycenae and the pedimental sculptures from the temple of 
Aphaia are really short essays, delightfully written, on the prehistoric 
art of Greece and the accomplishments of the Dorian school of athletic 
sculpture. Dr. Emerson’s wide knowledge of the history of art and his 
keen observation of life frequently appear in unexpected, but always apt, 
allusions and parallels. 

In detail the two volumes are open to some adverse criticism. It is 
disturbing to find the same work referred to as Von Mach, Mach, and 
University Prints; Overbeck, GGP* I, fig. 19a will hardly be clear to the 
uninitiated; and in general the references to publications would be much 
more useful if they were less abbreviated, or better still, if a list of abbre- 
viations were given, Mykenai and Mycenian (p. 38) cannot be called con- 
sistent, especially in view of the form Mykenian, which appears a few 
pages later (p.60). Many of these disturbing features are doubtless due 
to careless proofreading, of which other evidences are only too frequent. 

But these, after all, are points of minor importance, which can be 
remedied in later editions. The Catalogue will undoubtedly add much 
to the pleasure of visitors to the Art Institute, and with its numerous 
iHustrations, it may well be used by students of ancient art elsewhere. 


GeorGce H. Cuase 


Classical Philology 


Vor. ΠῚ October, 1908 No. 4 


IS THERE A SCIENCE OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY ?! 
By Francis W. Keisry 


One day in March, 1776, in Gottingen, a young man of 
seventeen presented a note of introduction to Christian Gottlob 
Heyne, the first classical scholar of the time, whose bulky edition 
of Virgil, revised by Wagner, is still frequently referred to. With 
an air of impatience, we are told, the older man came from his 
study and having glanced at the note asked the youth whose fool- 
ish advice he had followed in making so perverse a choice of work 
as the pursuit of so-called ‘‘philology,” which had as yet not even 
a standing as an academic subject; a student of such tastes must 
perforce choose as his department theology or law. The young 
man, taken aback, answered that he desired the larger freedom of 
a field in which he could work out his own views without being 
hampered, as in theology, by the restrictions of a ready-made 
system. ‘‘But,” urged Heyne, ‘‘that line of work leads to starva- 
tion;” adding that even the professors fared little better; that in 
Germany there were at most only four or six good university 
positions in this field. Undaunted, the youth replied that he 
purposed to fit himself for one of these. 

About a year later the young man presented himself for 
matriculation to the prorector of the university, a famous pro- 
fessor of medicine in those days, Dr. Baldinger. He offered 

1 President’s address before the American Philological Association at a joint meet- 
ing of this Association and the Archaeological Institute of America at The University 


of Chicago, December, 1907. 
(CiassicaL Pario.oey III, October, 1908] 369 


870 Franois W. KELSEY 


himself as a student of philology, Philologiae studiosus. Shaking 
with laughter the prorector declared that there were students of 
medicine, also of law and theology, yes there were even students 
of philosophy; but who ever heard of a student of philology? If it 
was his ambition to become a schoolmaster— and from this might 
the good Lord deliver him!—he must enroll as a student of the- 
ology. In the face of opposition and ridicule, persistence won 
the day, and his enrolment was accepted. 

That fearless and determined student was Friedrich August 
Wolf. His matriculation introduced a new term into university 
nomenclature; the date of it, April 8, 1777, one hundred and 
thirty years ago if we reckon back from the opening of the last 
spring quarter, was the birthday of classical philology. 

It has ever been the fashion to look upon leaders of power, 
whether in the domain of ideas or of affairs, as men gifted with a 
kind of occult knowledge who, because illumined by an inner 
vision, were ordained to blaze trails for the masses. It were more 
exact to say that all leadership is in final analysis a product of 
conditions. Ideas and ideals germinate, and are disseminated; 
like all manifestations of racial or national impulse they are half- 
formed, inchoate. Then arises the poet or the preacher, the 
artist, the philosopher, the scholar or the statesman, who through 
deeper insight apprehends more clearly and brings the idea or 
ideal, present in many minds as an indistinct aspiration or glimpse 
of truth, to full and forceful expression. The leader is thus a 
revealer of life to itself, the interpreter, not the creator, of condi- 
tions of which he is a part. And it is no disparagement of the 
power and service of Wolf, any more than of other intellectual or 
moral leaders, to say that he was by no means a bolt out οὗ 8 
clear sky. The generation of David Hume and Jean Jacques 
Rousseau, which claimed Voltaire as an elder colleague, and as 
younger members Winckelmann and Immanuel Kant, had poured 
new wine into old wine-skins. Wolf represented, for a portion of 
the field of learning, the same widening of horizon, the same 
general reaction against tradition and authority which manifested 
itself in encyclopedism, and in the storm-and-stress movement 
of German literature. In the sphere of government it found 


Is THERE A SOIENCE OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY ? 371 


expression, in our country, in the Declaration of Independence 
and the Revolution; in France it burst all restraining barriers in 
1789. At the very time when Wolf was trying to sate his intel- 
lectual hunger with the husks of the traditional university instruc- 
tion, Washington was facing starvation for his half-clad forces at 
Valley Forge. 

The services which Wolf rendered not merely to classical phi- 
lology but to philological studies in general, cannot easily be set 
forth in words. Things for which he stood, which to his contem- 
poraries appeared radical and revolutionary, are now common- 
places of the lecture-room, and seem to us as if they must always 
have been so. And though regarded as the founder of a new 
order of studies, he left no unchallenged and abiding contribu- 
tion; he set forth no universal law, as did, for example, Sir Isaac 
Newton, who by formulating the law of gravitation had laid an 
immovable cornerstone for the sciences of matter. Of Wolf's 
Prolegomena to Homer, which started the controversy in regard 
to the authorship and composition of the Iliad and the Odyssey, 
hardly a conclusion is today recognized as valid—the argument 
rests largely upon the assumption that the art of writing was 
unknown at the time when Homer was supposed to have lived; 
the controversy, nevertheless, still continues. Less frequently 
mentioned are his arguments against the authenticity of certain 
orations of Cicero, particularly the four associated with the 
orator’s return from exile and that for Marcellus, arguments 
which were inspired, he tells us, by the doubts of the English 
scholar Jeremiah Markland. With what confidence, in his address 
to the reader at the beginning of his edition of the Marcellus, 
does he state his conclusion: 


Account must be taken [he says] of those things that offend the reader, 
and the writer must be so struck down by a single blow that no hope of 
recovering his position will be left to him. And this I think I shall have 
accomplished if I shall show that the oration (for Marcellus) is devoid of 
substance; that in respect to the choice and collocation of words, and in 
its constructions, it is often hardly Latin; that the composition as a 
whole is inept, silly, and laughable; in fine, that it is more worthy of 
the addle-pated Claudius than of Cicero. 


872 Franois W. KELSEY 


Does any editor today deem it necessary to reckon with Wolf 
before undertaking to expound the Marcellus or the De domo 
sua? So completely has the authenticity of the entire group of 
obelized speeches been vindicated that only historical interest 
now attaches to the considerations urged against them. The 
inconclusiveness of the attempts to impugn their genuineness 
presents a sorry contrast with the masterly decisiveness of Bentley’s 
Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris, which introduced a 
perpetual guest into the limbo of discredited literary forgeries. 

The pigmy, mounted on the giant’s shoulders, can see further 
than the giant himself; and it has been the usual fate of contri- 
butions to knowledge dealing with large masses of detail that 
sooner or later they have been superseded by the work of others 
who, building on them as a foundation, have been able with the 
progress of research, and improvement in working method, to 
bring under survey a wider range of facts. Does it lessen the 
value of Charles Darwin’s formulation of the theory of organic 
evolution that his doctrine of natural selection, within a half- 
century after it was put forth, is in the light of fuller knowledge 
held to be untenable? We may grant that all of Wolf’s writings, 
which were at best only fragments of large undertakings planned 
but never executed, contain but little that is of use to the student 
who has the recent literature of the classics at his command; the 
fact serves only to bring out into a clearer light the value and 
influence of the new conception of the province and range of classi- 
cal studies which he elaborated and put forth. He sought to 
grasp not merely classical literature but classical antiquity. He 
endeavored so to group and unify the different lines of study in 
language, institutions, literature, and art as to make it possible 
to survey the field in its entirety, and form a mental picture of 
ancient civilization as a whole. His aim was to reduce our knowl- 
edge of Greek and Roman culture in all its phases to a scientific 
coherence and consistency. The main elements of his doctrine, 
which he set forth in his university lectures, were given to the 
world by his students before 1800; in the year 1807 he published 
an outline himself. What better evidence could there be of the 
soundness of his contention than this joint meeting, which brings 


Is THERE ἃ SOIENCE OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY? 373 


together, in a city that in his time was only a stockaded block- 
house in the wilderness, so large a body of workers representing 
not merely philology in the narrower sense but classical antiquity 
as he conceived it, and much besides? Not without reason, then, 
may we regard this meeting of the American Philological Asso- 
ciation and the Archaeological Institute of America as a centennial 
celebration. 

Viewed in the light of a century’s progress, Wolf’s system on 
the logical or formal side is seen to be defective as the basis of a 
science; the grouping of the various departments of study is arti- 
ficial, and is lacking in the clear recognition of a fundamental 
co-ordinating principle; there is also a confusion between method 
and matter. His scheme viewed the knowledge of classical anti- 
quity as composed of twenty-four branches or lines of study, of 
which twenty-three are arranged in four groups. The first group 
is introductory, and brings together six subjects: a survey of the 
fundamental principles of both the classical languages; Greek 
grammar; Latin grammar; interpretation; criticism; and princi- 
ples of Greek and Latin composition for both prose and poetry, 
or the theory of writing and metrics. In the other three groups 
are found, in general, the other subjects comprehended today in 
such a work as Maller’s Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswis- 
senschaft, but not divided and subdivided according to the usage 
now in vogue. The twenty-fourth subject, set off by itself as a 
kind of appendix, is the history of the literature of classical phi- 
lology, with which bibliography also is joined. 

Associated with this comprehensive scheme there was of neces- 
sity a new point of view for the consideration of the Greek and 
Roman literatures. If the purpose of the reading of the ancient 
authors was not, apart from mere enjoyment, to prepare oneself 
for the study of theology or law, if they were to be viewed as con- 
tributing evidence for our understanding of the ancient man, they 
must not be merely read but critically examined; they must be 
subjected to the most rigid tests, not only for the facts of language 
but for the truth or falsity of statements of every sort found in 
them. This reactionary and critical attitude sent thrills of horror 
through the more conservative of Wolf’s contemporaries, who had 


874 Franois W. KELSEY 


reverenced the ancients as looking down upon modern life from a 
high pedestal, and had viewed the works of Greek and Roman 
literature as well-nigh faultless models of unapproachable excel- 
lence. It was most completely manifested in the Prolegomena to 
Homer, to which reference has already been made; but the world 
was ready for Wolf’s message and the influence of that small 
book, we have often been told, was greater than that of any other 
purely philological work ever written. Classical studies began to 
have a new dignity and purpose. How generally they had been 
regarded as subsidiary to theology and, on the continent, to civil 
law it is not easy for us to comprehend; and, on the other hand, 
we often fail to appreciate the value of the services not merely of 
the Roman Catholic church but of the reformed churches to 
classical philology in the pre-Wolfian period. It was a papal 
stipendium which made it possible for Winckelmann to carry on 
his studies in Italy; and in the English universities, foundations 
which were primarily theological were liberally administered and 
had fostered the study of the classics. No one can turn the pages 
of the works of Richard Bentley without being impreseed with 
the theological bent of his training; yet England has produced 
no greater master of the pagan literature. The broader concep- 
tion of philological studies made current by Wolf's teachings 
caused the interpretation of the ancient culture to appear some- 
thing worthy in itself, and emancipated classical philology once 
for all from leading-strings. It was a theologian, Adolf Harnack, 
who wrote of Wolf’s exposition of classical antiquity as a science 
that “it took classical philology out of the vestibule of theology, 
lifted her over the ranges of polite literature, and founded for her 
an independent kingdom.”' The inspiration of his ideals pro- 
duced a profound effect upon his younger contemporaries; upon 
none perhaps more than Niebuhr, who applied the new criticism 
to the literary sources of Roman history. 

Intellectual phenomena are rarely isolated; the same con- 
ditions stimulate minds in widely different environments. View- 
ing in a still broader horizon not merely the critical but the 
constructive work of Wolf as the founder of classical philology, 


1 Geschichte der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften su Berlin, 
Vol. I, Pt. 2, p. 853, footnote. 


Is THERE A SOIENCE OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY? 375 


we see that he was one of a group of men who about the same 
time set new landmarks in the history of the sciences; of whom 
it may justly be said that they prepared the way for the marvelous 
advance of knowledge that characterized the nineteenth century. 
When Wolf at Halle was elaborating his theory of the composition 
of the Homeric poems the botanist Antoine Laurent de Jussieu, 
dissatisfied with the classification proposed by Linnaeus, was 
developing the system of botanical nomenclature which forms the 
basis of that used generally today. Baron Cuvier, the founder 
of comparative anatomy, finished his Anatomie comparée in 1805. 
About the same time Dalton worked out his doctrine of the atom, 
which made possible the development of a science of chemistry, 
and which, reinforced later by the law of the conservation of 
energy, became the foundation stone of a new physics. In the 
same period the Mécanique céleste of Laplace, which has pro- 
foundly influenced the progress of mathematical astronomy, was 
in course of publication; and the great reflecting telescope of Sir 
William Herschel, mounted in 1789, was subjecting the heavenly 
bodies to a closer scrutiny than had previously been possible. As 
the origin of classical philology was only a phase of a general 
reaction, so its development formed a part of a larger scientific 
movement along constructive lines. 

And how amazing that development has been! It is recorded 
partly in the literature, partly in those vast collections of material 
relics of Greek and Roman culture which exploration and excava- 
tion have in the past century gathered and stored. Several of the 
academies had been founded at the end of the seventeenth or the 
beginning of the eighteenth century, as the Academy of Inscrip- 
tions and Belles-Lettres in France, the Royal Academy at Berlin, 
and the Imperial Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg; but in 
the latter part of the eighteenth century and in the first half of 
the nineteenth these were either reorganized or revivified, and 
several new academies were established. In the voluminous 
memoirs and transactions of nearly all of them, contributions in 
the field of classical antiquity have a prominent place. The 
academies have also assisted in the publication of important col- 
lections, as of inscriptions and of authors, a praiseworthy example 


876 Franois W. KELSEY 


being the new Vienna collection of Latin ecclesiastical writers. 
Other collections, particularly of texts, have been put forth by 
enterprising publishers, often at a pecuniary risk which should 
not be lost sight of in estimating the value of their services to 
science; such collections, I mean, as that of the Byzantine his- 
torians, projected by Niebuhr and published by Weber in Bonn; 
of Greek authors issued by the firm of Didot, at Paris; of the 
Library of Greek and Latin writers put forth by the house of 
Teubner, in Leipzig; last (for only a few can be named) and also 
on a lower plane of scholarship, nevertheless an exceedingly use- 
ful collection, Migne’s Patrology. 

Not to mention the avalanche of individual contributions, of 
editions, handbooks, monographs of every sort, academic pro- 
grammes and dissertations which, gathering volume with each 
succeeding year, has rolled down upon the opening decade of the 
twentieth century, we may note, as further evidence of the devel- 
opment of classical philology on the scientific side, the multipli- 
cation of technical periodicals, and their increase in bulk as well 
as importance. Here again Wolf was a pioneer. With Philipp 
Karl Buttmann he founded the Museum der Alterthumswissen- 
schaft, in the first volume of which he published the outline of 
classical antiquity of which I have spoken; but only two volumes 
appeared. Not till 1826 was a periodical started which was des- 
tined to survive; in that year the first volume of Jahn’s Jahr- 
bicher far Philologie und Paedagogik saw the light, a journal 
which through many vicissitudes and with some changes in name 
and form, has continued to the present day. In 1829, the publica- 
tions of the German Archaeological Institute in Rome commenced. 
The decade from 1840 to 1850 witnessed the successful launching 
of no less than three periodicals that were devoted exclusively or 
chiefly to contributions in the classical field, the Rheinisches 
Museum, established on a firm foundation after two previous 
attempts (in 1827-29, 1833-38); Philologus, and the Revue 
archéologique; with these we might name also the Zeitschrift 
far das Gymnasialwesen, which gave much space to the classics, 
Since 1850, and particularly in the past thirty years, the number 
of technical journals in the classical field—some of them devoted 


Is THERE A SCIENCE OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY? 877 


to a narrow subdivision—and of serial publications issued under 
the auspices of learned societies and of universities, has increased 
with unprecedented rapidity. With mingled feelings of joy, 
pride, and dismay the classical scholar today views the tier on 
tier of pigeon-holes for current publications of his subject in the 
classical seminary or the library reading-room. That was not 
altogether a jest which was uttered by my former colleague Cal- 
vin Thomas, when, addressing a company of philologians of the 
modern field, he said: “If we keep ourselves abreast of the 
technical literature of our specialty, when shall we have time to 
improve our minds?” 

But the influence of the scientific conception of philology, in 
the narrower as well as the broader sense first developed and 
applied in the classical field, has by no means been confined 
within the original limits. From the time of Sir William Jones, 
who died in 1794, there was an increasing recognition of the 
interest and worth of Sanskrit. Thirty years later Franz Bopp, 
associating the classical with the oriental Indo-European lan- 
guages, became the founder of comparative philology. In 1829 
Jakob Grimm commenced the publication of his Deutsche Gram- 
matik, which laid the foundations of modern Germanic philology; 
and the Zeitschrift far vergleichende Sprachforschung, founded 
in 1852, on the title-page of the first volume designated as its field 
German, Greek, and Latin. Since that time the range of data 
available for the student of comparative philology has been enor- 
mously extended, and the position of Greek and Latin has become 
relatively less prominent; yet the study of the classical languages 
will continue to be indispensable to the comparative philologist, 
because they furnish a long record of linguistic changes not so 
fully recorded in the case of languages more recently reduced to 
writing; and the classical scholar will constantly invoke the aid 
of the comparative philologist for the understanding of the devel- 
opment of Greek and Latin. At the present time modern Euro- 
pean philology, with its subdivision of Teutonic, Romance and 
Slavic languages, has amassed a voluminous technical literature 
of its own, which likewise has many points of contact with that 
of the classical languages. 


878 Franois W. ΚΕΙΒΕΥ 


But if the aspect of the technical literature alone is bewilder- 
ing, what shall we say of the myriads upon myriads of objects, 
recovered in the past century from the wreck of ancient civiliza- 
tion, which bear the very marks of the hands that wrought them? 
Buildings and structures of every sort and size, now found stand- 
ing and tenantless in a Syrian waste, now exhumed slowly by the 
spade and reconstructed only in imagination; stamped handles of 
wine jars picked up on the shore of deserted Carthage, and 
exquisite painted vases from Etruria; bits of lead inscribed with 
cabalistic curses, and choicest examples of the art of the silver- 
smith from Bernay or Hildesheim or Boscoreale; coins by the 
thousand, from the rude cast coppers of early Italy to the exquis- 
ite mintage of Athens or Syracuse; types of plastic art, from the 
child’s toy, the crude ex voto and the daintily fashioned figurine 
of clay, to the very handiwork of a Praxiteles; brittle, tattered 
papyri, and now shriveled parchments, from Egyptian sand heaps; 
painted portraits from Egypt, polychrome sarcophagi from Sidon, 
mural decorations not merely from Campanian sites, but from 
points so widely separated as Delos and Caerwent; sacred pre- 
cincts unearthed, as at Olympia and Delphi; whole sections of 
cities uncovered before our eyes, as in Pompeii and Timgad; 
marsh settlements in Italy with suggestions of Roma Quadrata 
and the arrangement of the Roman camp, graves of chieftains at 
Mycenae revealing a forgotten culture, a labyrinth in Crete; dis- 
coveries without number over a territory extending from the 
Atlantic to the Caspian and from the Sahara to the North Sea 
and Scotland, exemplifying conditions of life that succeeded one 
another over a period of at least two thousand years, and in some 
places over a much longer time! And that the task of the classi- 
cal scholar, trying to grasp the ancient culture as conceived by 
Wolf, may not seem too simple, the ingenuity of a Champollion 
in solving the mystery of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, the heroic 
enterprise of Botta and Layard in opening up the mounds of the 
drainage area of the Tigris and Euphrates, the patience and acu- 
men of Grotefend, Sir Henry Rawlinson and their associates and 
successors in searching out the key of the cuneiform writing, the 
persistence of Texier, Dieulafoy, and a score of other intrepid 


Is THERE A SOIENCE oF CuassicaAL PHiILoLoey? 879. 


explorers in penetrating to remote sites, have made possible the 
reconstruction, at least in outline, of other and hoary civilizations 
which cast their mantle over nascent Hellenism, which kindled 
the torch that Greece passed on to Rome, Rome to modern 
times. Philological scholarship has known no more fascinating 
problems than those that now lie, awaiting solution, along the 
border of the old Orient and the new Occident, in Asia Minor, 
Cyprus, and Crete. 

And in how short a time has this expansion of philological 
knowledge taken place, an expansion made possible only by the 
application of scientific method, and such as the world never before 
witnessed! There are yet living, in the full enjoyment of their 
faculties, not a few persons whose childhood fell in the latter part 
of Wolf's lifetime—TI have talked with two such within the past 
week ; and Wolf was only 65 when he died, in 1824. The Behistun 
inscription was not copied in a manner to support the solution of 
the Cuneiform writing until 1837; that was, to be sure, the year 
of the founding of the oldest of the western state universities,’ but 
the events of it do not seem remote, as they are called to memory 
in conversation. Even the life that has not reached beyond the 
scriptural threescore years and ten spans the interval between 
then and now; and in such a lifetime has come the chief part of 
the almost incomprehensible accumulation of new material and 
new literature of exposition and co-ordination in the domain of 
classical antiquity. 

This expansion of knowledge such as Wolf, had he allowed his 
imagination freest range, could not have conceived, forces upon us 
the question, will his organization of the science of classical phi- 
lology which, though defective in details, was in its main conten- 
tion adapted to the state of learning in his time, continue to prove 
adequate under the changed conditions? 

The most obvious defects upon the formal side of Wolf’s system 
were in great part remedied by his most eminent pupil, August 
Boeckh, who lectured upon the theory and methods of classical 
philology in twenty-six semesters, during a period of fifty-six 
years, from 1809 -to 1865; and who in a masterly contribution 

1The University of Michigan. 


880 Franois W. KELSEY 


dealing with Athenian public life illustrated by application the 
principles and methods which he taught. The fundamental con- 
ception, that our knowledge of classical antiquity may theoreti- 
cally at least be reduced to such unity and coherence as to form 
a science, has in recent years rarely been challenged. The aim of 
this science is understood to be the ideal reconstruction of Greek 
and Roman culture; the methods two: interpretation, through 
which a clear understanding is reached of any survival of that 
culture which has come down to modern times; and criticism, 
through which effort is made to determine the original form of 
that which has been corrupted or deprived of parts in the trans- 
mission. 

Leaving differences of nomenclature out of account as relatively 
- unimportant, we notice that as an organized science classical phi- 
lology is open to attack from two directions, from within and from 
without. In the first place, no agreement has yet been reached 
regarding the subdivisions and their relative importance. What ᾿ 
Cicero says of the liberal arts, that they are all connected by a 
common bond, is applicable here; moreover, in any science deal- 
ing with social phenomena the demarcation of the allied provinces 
is not so clear as in the exact sciences, and a certain amount of 
overlapping is to be expected. As good a division as any is that 
which views the Graeco-Roman culture as revealed in six phases: 
first, language and literature (that is, of both Greek and Latin) ; 
then religion; public life, or man in his social relations, that is, 
the state, which treated analytically gives us the study of political 
institutions, treated as an organism adjusting itself to an environ- 
ment yields history; private life, or man in his relations as an 
individual; the fine arts, as an embodiment of ideals of beauty in 
substance; and finally philosophy, as antiquity’s own reflection 
upon its Whence and Whither, its attempt at solution of the 
world problem. 

Not to speak of other shortcomings, what place is there left in 
such a scheme for archaeology? Obviously none, unless archae- 
ology is limited to the history of the fine arts, or is considered as 
a subsidiary means rather than a division. The English tradition 
from Sir Charles Newton down, and to some extent the continental 


Is THERE A SOIENOCE OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY? 881 


usage, tend to lift archaeology, as the study which deals with the 
remains of man’s handiwork in past times, to the level of an inde- 
pendent science co-ordinate with philology (in the narrower sense ) 
and history; yet a moment’s consideration will show how unten- 
able is this view. The remains of man’s handiwork have slight 
significance for us apart from the thought or purpose which lies 
behind them. When the purpose is the expression of beauty, the 
consideration of the object falls within the province of the fine 
arts, which is as properly a main division as is public or private 
life, or philosophy; but when the material relic serves only a 
lower or utilitarian end, as a block of stone carved with an inscrip- 
tion, a roll of papyrus, a bronze knife used in sacrifices, a Roman 
road, a farmer’s mattock, or a collection of surgical instruments, | 
its purpose and use obviously bring it to our consideration under 
purview of the province which it illustrates; the provinces for the 
objects named would be language, or language and literature, 
religion, public life, and private life. Can it not be urged that in 
dealing with all such material archaeology becomes merely an appli- 
cation of the general method of interpretation or exegesis? Into 
this complicated question, however, I cannot enter here; perhaps 
on some future occasion I may be permitted to discuss by itself 
the problem of the province and aims of archaeology. The mani- 
fest confusion in the connotations of this and other terms in the 
domain of classical philology is to be explained in part by the fact 
that power of assimilation has not equaled the rapidity of accumu- 
lation of new material. 

In the preface of a recent book on the progress of classical 
studies in the past twenty-five years Wilhelm Kroll remarks that 
“today, fortunately,” broad general surveys of the divisions of 
the classical field are no longer in fashion; and in the book itself he 
has grouped seventeen short summaries, by nearly as many writers, 
on the progress of various branches, as metrics, Roman literature, 
Greek grammar, Greek philosophy. These are thrown together 
without any attempt at logical order and without a word of gen- 
eralization at the beginning or end of the volume on the advance 
of classical studies as a whole. Such a hit-or-miss ordering of 
material is unfortunately characteristic of much philological work 


882 Franois W. KELSEY 


at the present time. With the rapid increase in the range and 
number of facts the subdividing of fields of study has gone on 
until many specialists have entirely lost their perspective and are 
no longer able to see the forest for the trees. Specialization has 
become a necessity; yet without a broad foundation and large 
outlook it defeats its own purpose. The conclusions of the narrow 
specialist are vitiated by his narrowness; ‘‘What does he know of 
England who only England knows?”’ 

It must be confessed that the inner relations of classical phi- 
lology are far from settled; yet each decade marks an advance in 
the definiteness and certainty of knowledge in all the provinces, 
and makes more clear their mutual interdependence. The danger 
of disintegration is on the whole probably less than that of dis- 
memberment in a more general reclassification of the sciences 
which is, according to many indications, impending; and classical 
philology is in this respect no worse off than many other subjects. 
We seem to be drifting toward a regrouping of all the sciences 
concerned with man under the head of anthropology. It is instruc- 
tive to turn the pages of the volumes entitled Physical Anthro- 
pology in the International Catalogue of Scientific Literature, and 
to glance through the recent volumes of the Berliner Gesellschaft 
far Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte; there are included 
not merely the references to literature dealing with man as a 
physical being, but also references and contributions touching 
every manifestation of his higher nature through language, insti- 
tutions and the arts. | 

The foundations of anthropology are not yet laid with sufficient 
security to make a readjustment immediately necessary for our 
subject. Of greater concern to the classical philologist is the 
increasing comprehensiveness of specialization in certain provinces 
of anthropology which cut across his domain. Students of the 
history of art not without reason look upon the interpretation of 
the fine arts in the Graeco-Roman period as part of their task; 
the attitude of the student of the history of philosophy is similar. 
And from the opposite point of view the question is raised, 
whether the classical philologist can interpret the architecture, 
sculpture, painting, and minor arts of the Greeks and Romans 


Is THERE A SCIENCE OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY? 888 


without a technical training and some familiarity with the whole 
history of art. How can he be expected to expound the ancient 
philosophy in a manner intelligible to the present age without a 
knowledge of the philosophical movements since the fall of the 
Roman Empire? 

Without pausing to take up these questions in detail we may, 
I think, obtain a point of view from which the coherence of classical 
philology will become readily apparent. After all considerations 
have been weighed that make for its unwieldiness, its faulty sub- 
division, and its imperfect correlation with kindred sciences, it 
still remains the imaged microcosm of a single civilization, which 
politically, it is true, passed through two characteristic phases 
and was, broadly speaking, based on two ethnologically distinct 
dominant or controlling populations. The provinces of classical 
philology represent the avenues through which racial and national 
thought and impulse found expression in language and literature, 
cults, institutions, customs, art, and philosophy. A perfect com- 
mand of all these would enable us perfectly to understand the 
ancient man, who, though separated from us by the lapse of so 
many centuries, is very near to us in spirit. The evolution of 
thought and enlargement of experience may regroup sciences as 
it will; the work of the classical philologist as the interpreter not 
merely of language but of a culture cannot be dispensed with so 
long as mankind shall have regard for the past. Cults and works 
of art and speculative systems are no less forms of national self- 
expression than letters and government; and no one of them can 
be fully understood except in the light of all the others. How 
pitiable, as a rule, are the attempts of those who have not had a 
broad and thorough classical training to set forth either ancient 
art or ancient philosophy, or even ancient history! And the stu- 
dent can make no greater mistake than to suppose that he can 
become a trustworthy expositor of the classical literature without 
knowledge, accurate and systematic so far as it goes, of all the 
other parallel manifestations of the Graeco-Roman spirit. On 
the other hand, language and literature are the most plastic, many- 
sided and complete of all possible forms of national self-expression ; 
and many a younger classical scholar who has become imbued 


884 Franois W. KELSEY 


with the desire to conduct investigations needs to be reminded that 
only by the constant reading of the great Greek and Latin authors 
can he hope to obtain that insight which is fundamental to the 
successful prosecution of his task. | 

I have spoken of classical philology as a science; but do not 
misunderstand me, I mean no pyramid of bricks. Bit by bit 
evidence is collected, sifted, and pieced together; but larger com- 
binations are effected, as in all sciences, by the constructive 
imagination, and a final test of every reconstruction of antiquity 
is its vitality. If we can gain the point of view of the Greek or 
the Roman, with his heredity, his atmosphere, his superstitions, 
his ambitions, his inquisitiveness, his sensitiveness to beauty of 
form, and his ethical ideals, Athens and Rome will for us be no 
longer peopled with lay figures, and we shall have taken a long 
step toward our goal. ~ 

In one respect the American classical student has a peculiar 
coign of vantage. From our kindred across the sea we have the 
tradition of the classics as humanities, that they should be read 
primarily to be enjoyed, and for their refining influence; thence, 
too, from time to time come books in our own tongue that mani- 
fest an appreciation of ancient literature so delicate and yet so 
deep that they are at the same time a revelation and an inspira- 
tion. But side by side with this humane ideal we have the 
scientific, introduced from the German university, which we have 
sought to superimpose upon the American college of English 
origin. The function of art in all its forms is to please; and he 
who is lacking in appreciation of art whether manifested in the 
literary masterpiece or in the monument is thereby disqualified 
for the scientific study of either, because unable to comprehend 
its purpose. Herein lies the opportunity, the call of American 
classical scholarship, that it blend together into one both the 
humane ideal and the scientific, and thus create a new type, which 
shall be as strong in sympathy and appreciation as it is broad, 
exact, and thorough. 

It is a laudable ambition for the well-equipped classical scholar 
that he should desire to make a contribution, to add, if only an 
item, to the great sum of knowledge; to leave behind him some- 


α΄, 


Is THERE A SOIENOCE OF CLASSIOAL PHILOLOGY ? 88 


thing defined and proved both new and true, and worth knowing. 
But no matter how narrow the field which he may choose for 
special attainment or how restricted the area of investigation, 
especially if he be also a teacher he must never forget that he is 
to his day and generation an interpreter not of an isolated group 
of phenomena, but of a civilization, which in its better moments 
rose to ideals that are akin to those of our day because we have 
them as an inheritance; and he should never lose sight of that 
higher mission of classical study defined by an American, who 
knew much of its spirit if not also of the letter, as the accumula- 
tion, upon the present age, of the influence of whatever was best 
and greatest in the life of the past. 


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 


Ὁ δὸ σ δ) δἱ ὡ. ἐδ δὸ ei Somanuaanmeorem 


THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR 


By W. 5. Fsrcuson 


887/6* July 16 Phrynichos,O! | 318/7t June 16 
3386/5 “ κα Pythodelos,I | 3817/6 July 5 
8335/4 “24 Enuainetos, Ὁ 316/5 “« 28 
334/38 “ 18 Ktesikles, O $15/4 “ 12 
33/2 ‘“ 1 Nikokrates,I | 314/8 “1 
382/1 “ 20 Niketes, O 3183/2 “ 19 
851 ‘“* 9 Aristophanes, O | 3812/1 Aug. 7 
330/09 June2 Aristophon,I | 311/0f July 27 
$29/8* July 17 Kephisophon,O | 8310/9 “ 11 
825,7 “ 6 Euthykritos,O | 809,85" “ 5 
8327/6 June 2 Hegemon, i 805. June 25 
826) July 15 Chremes, O 307/6t July 14 
8325, 45 “ 8 Antikles,O 806,5 “Ἄ 44 
8244/8 June 22 Hegesias, O 305/4*¢ June 22 
825,2 * 11 Kephisodoros,O| 34/83 July 11 
$22/1 May 81 Philokles,I 805,2 “:εὠιμἣ1 
21. ΟΡ June 18 Archippos, o 9302/1 “ 2 
$20/9 “ 8 Neaichmos, I s01/oee# “ 8 
319/8 “27 Apollodoros,o {| 3900/9 “* 21 


Archippos, I 
Demogenes, i 
Demokleides, o 
Praxibulos, o 
Nikodoros, I 
Theophrastos, I 
Polemon,o 
Simonides, o 
Hieromnemon, O 
Demetrios, o 
Kairimos, i 
Anaxikrates, O 
Koroibos, O 
Euxenippos, I 
Pherekles, O 
Leostratos, I 
Nikokles, O 
Klearchos, I 
Hegemachos, o 


290,8 July 16 
26/7 “ 
291,65 “ 
296 “" 
254. “ 
2/3 “" 


Euktemon, O 
Mnesidemos, i 
Antiphates, o 
Nikias, o 
Nikostratos, I 
Olympiodoros,O 
Charinos? o 
Philippos? i 
Kimon, i 
Diokles, O 
Diotimos, O 
Isaios, i 
Euthios, O 
Xenophon, i 
Urios, O 
Telokles? i 
Menekles, O 
Nikias Otr., O 
Aristonymos, O 


1O=demonstrated ; o=hypothetical, ordinary year. I=demonstrated; i=hypothetical, intercalary year. 
The first part of this table is compiled, with modifications, from that given by Unger in Mueller Hand- 
buch I3, p. 155. Seeing that 331/0 did actually begin on July 9 (édid., p. 754) the dates of the months for the first 
cycle or two are approximately correct—if the intercalations were made as set forth in the table. For the 
calendar character of 8326/5 B. 0. see below, p. 388, ἢ. 1; for that of 9305/4 see 1G. II, 288, which Sundwall (Acta 
societatis sctentiarum fennicae, 1907) has correctly put in this year. The archons after 2904/3 B.c. are dated as 
in the Priests of Asklepios, ἡ. 132. For the calendar quality of the archon years see Beloch Kito I, pp. 412 ff., and 
Griech. Gesch. III 2, pp. 52 ff. where the year of Nikias Otr., which is an ordinary year, is wrongly treated as 
undetermined; also Sundwall, Ofversigt af Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens Forhandlingar X LIX, 1906-7, No. 9, 
pp. 75 ff., cited below as Untersuch. from the title of the monograph, which is Untersuchungen δεν die 
attische Manzen neueren Stils. 


280/9 Gorgias 
279/8 Anaxikrates 
2718/1 O Demokles 
2771/6 — laios? 
2176/5 Eubulos 
2753/4 + Polyeuktos 
274/83 I Hieron 
2713/2 

212,1 


271/0 I Pytharatos 
270/9 O IG. I1 5 232e, 
289,8 

258 Ο Philokrates 
261,8 

266,5 O Peithidemos 
265/4 
264/83 
2638/2 
262/11 Antipatros 


Diognetos 


261/0 
260,9 


Ο Arrheneides 


O Kleomachos 


Diogeiton 
Olbios 


ΟἹ Lysiades 

I Kallimedes 
O? Glaukippos 
O Thersilochos 


242/1 223/2 
241/0 /1 
240/9 221,0 
239/8 I Charikles 220/9 
2338/7 Lysias 219/8 
237/6 Kimon 218/7 
236/5 I Ekphantos 2176 
235/4 O Lysanias 216/5 
2341/3 215/4 
233/2 214/3 
232/1 ΟἹ Diomedon 213/2 
231/0 Jason 212/1 
230/9 211/0 
2289/8 O Heliodoros 210/9 
228/17 Leochares 2009/8 
227/6 O Theophilos 208/7 
228/5 O Ergochares 207/6 
225/4 Niketes 206/5 
224,8 Antiphilos 2053/4 


(CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY ITI, October, 1908] 386 


Kalli- 
Menekrates 


O Thrasyphon 


ΟἹ 

Chairephon 

Pantiades? 
I Diokles 
Euphiletos 
Herakleitos 
Archelaos 
Aischron 


Philostratos 
I Antimachos 

Phanostratos 

Kallistratos? 


Be ἐδ (ὃ Κὸ Ὁ Ὁ 05 ἡ ὦ οὐ εν. Ὁ vem 
ws 
τς 
ν᾿» 


16 189,8 


Phanarchides? 


11 188,1 I? Symmachos 


18 187/6 


Theoxenos 


19 18/5 I Zopyros 


11 1381/0 
18 130/9 
19 129/8 


Meton? 


Dionysios? 
Hagnotheos 
Apollodoros 
Timarchos 
O Herakleitos 


Nikomachos 


O? Metrophanes 

ΟἹ Ergokles 

O Epikies 
Demostratos 
Lykiskos 


THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR 


185/4 O Eupolemos 


184/38 
1838/2 


Hermogenes 
Timesianax 


Philon 
Hippakos 


ΟΥ̓ Sonikos 


Tychandros 
De — 
Alexandros? 
Eunikos 
Xenokles 
Nikosthenes? 


Dionysios 
Theodorides 
Diotimos 

Jason 

Nikias & Isigenes 
Demetrios 
Nikodemos 
Xenon? 
Eumachos 
Hipparchos 


O Lenaios 


Menoites 


O Sarapion 


Nausias 


Paramonos 


O Dionysios July 18 


Sosikrates July 7 


O Polykleitos July 2 


887 


166/53 OT? Achaios 
1635/4 O Pelops 


164/8 Euerg —! 
1638/2 Erastos 
162/1 Poseidonios 
161/0 Aristolas 
160/9 Epainetos? 
1590/8 Aristaichmos 
158,7 Anthesterios 
157/6 Kallistratos 
1536/5 Mnesitheos 
1355/4 

154/38 Zaleukos? 
158/2 Phaidrias 
152/1 Lysiades 
151/0 I? Archon 
150/9 I Epikrates 
149/8 Theaitetos 
148/17 Aristophon 
100/8 O Jason July 14 
1086/7 Herakleides 
107/6 O Aristarchos 
106/5 O Agathokles 
105/4 

104/3 

108/2 

102/1 Theokles 
101,0 Echekrates 
100/9 O Medeios 
90/8 Theodosios 
9/7 O. Prokles 
97/6 Argeios 
96/5 Argeios 
05/4 Herakleitos 
94/8 O Demochares 
93/2 

92/1 Diokles? 
91/0 Medeios 


A glance at this table shows that an effort, but not a very 
serious one, was made to avoid the succession of three ordinary 
Thus the elements which normally 
recur in each cycle are OI, OOI, and it may be that theoretically 
they were arranged in the following series: OI, OOI, OOI, OOI, 
OOI, OI, O10. But it is possible to obtain seven intercalary 
years in the first cycle (sixth from the promulgation by Meton in 
433/2 B.0.) only by admitting three successive intercalary years 
between 322/1 and 318/7 B.0., as well as the four successive 


and two intercalary years. 


888 W. S. FERGuson 


ordinary years which are attested in 826/5,' 325/4, 324/3, and 
828,2. This no one will do except under compulsion; hence we 
have preferred’ to make this cycle fall a month short of its due, 
for which there is the additional argument that the second (or 
seventh) cycle began with an intercalary year. Accordingly, we 
have regarded the extra month of 318/7 B. Ο. as wiping out the 
defect of the preceding cycle. So far so good. But in 314/3 
and 313/2 B.0o. we find two successive intercalary years,’ to even 
up which we are obliged to enter either two groups of three suc- 
cessive ordinary years, or one group of four ordinary years in the 
period between 312/1 and 806) B.o. In the third (or eighth) 
cycle, also, three ordinary years follow one another at the end 
(283/2-281/0 B.o.), which argues for the existence of two suc- 
cessive intercalary years somewhere earlier in the period (e. 5.» 
292/1, 291/0 8.0.). We are consequently bound to deny the 
maintenance of any invariable sequence of ordinary and inter- 
calary years within the cycle. We need to recognize only an 
additional effort on the part of the Athenians to bring the lunar 
and the solar periods into the same relation to one another at the 


1] have restored as follows the inscription of this year, which is published in 
"Ed. ’Apx., 1898, p. 7, No. 2; cf. Plate I: 
[’A]oru - - 
20 ᾿Επὶ Χρέμητο[ς ἄρχοντος : é]- 
2] πὶ τῆς ᾽᾿Ερεχθη[ίδος rerdpr] - 
21 ns πρυτανείας [Μαιμακτηρ | - 
21] [ι]ῶνος ὀγδόηι κ[αὶ δεκάτηι) 
21 [(τ]ριακοστῆι τῆϊ: πρυτανεῆ - 
20 [as] ἐκκλησία κυ[ρία : τῶν wp} - 
[οεδρω]ν ἐπεψήζφιζε - - - 
30 + 29 + 30 + 29 + 18=136. 
35 + 36 + 35 + 30=136. 
No other restoration is possible whether the second line had twenty or twenty-one 
letters. 
2With Beloch Griech. Gesch. III 2, p. 58, who, however, ends each cycle in his 
table one year earlier than I do. This results from including 3387 s.0., which, as 
belonging to the preceding nineteen-year period, I have excluded. 


8 There is another possibility here, viz., that the prytanles were of unequal lengths 
(Unger Philologos XXXIV, pp. 503 ff.), as they seem, in fact, to have been in 186/5 
(1G. II 420) and 172/1 s.o. (BCH. XXIX, p. 169). But these were intercalary years at 
the time of the twelve tribes, and until marked differences of length are observed in 
the prytanies of an ordinary year and of an earlier time we have preferred to leave this 
additional element of uncertainty out of account. 


Tue ATHENIAN CALENDAR 889 


end of every nineteen years. That they tried to limit the free- 
dom of the government even to this extent is probable despite the 
failure in 337/6—319/8 Β. ο., both because of the insertion of an 
extra month in 318/7 B.o. at the opening of a cycle and because 
of the succession of three ordinary years in 283/2—281/0 B.o. at 
the end of a cycle; but it is demonstrable in one sole instance, 
viz., at the end of the twelfth (or nineteenth) cycle. This is, 
however, a clear case. It consists of the following fragment of 
a Milesian parapegma: [θ)ερινῆς τρο [πῆς [γε]νομένης ἐπὶ ᾿Αψεύ. 
Sous Σκιροφοριῶνος IT, ἥτις ἣν κατὰ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους μία καὶ K 
τοῦ Φαμενώθ, ἕως [τῆ )ς γενομένης ἐπὶ ΠΠολ Ἰυκλείτου Σκι[ ροφορι]ῶ- 
νος IA, κα τὰ δὲ τοὺς Αὐγυπτί[ ous τοῦ Παυ νὶ τῆς IA, [κατὰ δὲ τὸ 
Μιλ]ήσιον - - - - - From this document, as Rehm and Diels’ 
have pointed out, it is clear that the 27th of June corresponded 
with the 21st of Phamenoth, or the 201st day of the Egyptian 
year, on the 13th of Skirophorion in 433/2 B.0., and that it cor- 
responded with the 14th of Payni, or the 281st day of the Egyp- 
tian year, on the 14th of Skirophorion in the archonship of Poly- 
kleitos. That is to say, the solstice fell 80 days later in the year 
because of the interval, and since it fell back one day in every 
four years through the well-known failure of the Egyptians to 
intercalate a 366th day in leap years, the interval must have been 
from 320 to 324 years; in other words, Polykleitos must have 
been archon in 113/2, 112/1, 111/0, or 110/9 B.o. Now in his 
archonship the 27th of June coincided with the 14th of Skiro- 
phorion; hence the 30th of Skirophorion coincided with the 13th 
of July and the new moon was visible on the 14th of July. But 
in 112 the new moon was visible on the 29th of June or the 28th 
of July,’ in 111 on the 18th of July, in 110 on the 7th of July, 
but in 109 on the 14th of July precisely. Hence Polykleitos was 
archon in 110/9 B. 0. on astronomical grounds as well as because 
of the secretary canon; hence, moreover, the Athenian calendar 
was flawless in this year, i.e., at the end of the 12th (or nine- 
teenth) Metonic cycle. There is thus a certain warrant for 
believing that the effort was made generally to assign seven inter- 


1 Sitzungsb. ἃ. berl. Akad., 1904, pp. 92 ff. 
2Unger Miller’s Handbuch 13, p. 764; Sundwall Untersuch., p. 82. 


a 


890 W. S. FErauson 


calary and twelve ordinary years to every cycle, but none what- 
ever that this was done with such regularity in the disposition of 
these two elements as to enable us to predict the calendar quality 
of any given year. In other words, the attempt of Beloch' and 
others to date third century B. 0. archons by means of the calen- 
dar had from the start no chance of success; and, furthermore, 
the evidence which has been advanced to prove that the Metonic 
cycle was not introduced in the year of its discovery (433/2 B.o.) 
proves nothing of the kind, seeing that this cycle gave such a 
large measure of internal freedom. The empirical data won from 
the inscriptions contains nothing contradictory with the state- 
ment of Diodoros’ made in his record for Apseudes’ archonship 
(4383/2 8. ο.): ἐν δὲ ταῖς ᾿Αθήναις Μέτων ὁ Ilavcaviov μὲν vids, 
δεδοξασμένος δὲ ἐν ἀστρολογίᾳ, ἐξέθηκε τὴν ὀνομαζομένην ἐννεακαεδε- 
καετηρίδα, τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιησάμενος ἀπὸ μηνὸς ἐν ᾿Αθήναις Σκιροφοριῶ- 
νος τρισκαιδεκάτης. "Ev δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἔτεσι τὰ ἄστρα τὴν ἀπο- 
κατάστασιν ποιεῖται καὶ καθάπερ ἐνιαυτοῦ τινος μεγάλου τὸν ἀνακυ- 
κλισμὸν λαμβάνει" διὸ καὶ τινες αὐτὸν Μέτωνος ἐνιαυτὸν ὀνομάζουσι. 
Δοκεῖ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ οὗτος ἐν τῇ προρρήσει καὶ προγραφῇ ταύτῃ θαυμασ- 
τῶς ἐπιτετευχέναι" τὰ γὰρ ἄστρα τήν τε κίνησιν καὶ τὰς ἐπισημασίας 
ποιεῖται συμφώνως τῇ γραφῇ διὸ μέχρι τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς χρόνων οἱ 
πλεῖστοι τῶν Ελλήνων χρώμενοι τῇ ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδι οὐ διαψεύ. 
δονται τῆς ἀληθείας. That is to say, Meton’s nineteen-year cycle 
started at the summer solstice—13th of Skirophorion 4382/2 8. c. 
—a fact amply corroborated by the Milesian parapegma quoted 
above. The current doctrine is that this date was merely the 
point of departure for Meton’s calendar calculations, and that his 
era was not actually employed in Athens till about 100 years later; 
that what was set forth in 432 B. 0. was the table of computations 
alone. It cannot be denied that the passage of Diodoros will 
admit of this interpretation, but it does not prescribe it, and 
despite the great names which have given to it its present pres- 
tige, it has never quite ousted the common-sense interpretation of 
the passage in question and of the other evidence. For in the 
first place it is abundantly proven by the part played by Meton in 


1Griech. Gesch. 111 2, pp. 50ff. (Klio I, pp. 411 ff.’ 
ἽΧ1]1 36. 


THe ATHENIAN CALENDAR 891 


the comedies of Aristophanes’ and Phrynichos’ that he was a man 
with a popular reputation such as does not fall ordinarily to the 
lot of a scholar who has made a contribution to astronomical 
science. Meton must have succeeded in getting his scheme dis- 
cussed by the people of Athens. It guaranteed, what the octae- 
teris had failed to secure, astronomic correctness at the end of 
each cycle, and it set forth what was ideally the best grouping of 
the lunar months in the several years; but, as we have seen, it 
gave the δῆμος considerable freedom of intercalation within the 
limits of the larger period—a freedom which it did not wait till 
326/5 B. 0. to use for the first time, as is clear both from the pas- 
sage of 76. II 4, p. 59, quoted below,’ and from the complaints 
of Aristophanes in the Clouds‘ (414 8.0.) that the gods were not 
getting their sacrifices at the right times. The notoriety of Meton 
is thus the first argument that he published his adjustable almanac 
(parapegma), not on the basis of a theoretical nineteen-year cycle 
—which would have had little practical value if the days, months, 
and years of Athens depended upon a different scheme— but on 
the basis of a nineteen-year cycle which he had succeeded in 
having made the official calendar of the state. The second argu- 
ment is of a negative character. It is difficult to understand how 
the date, 13th of Skirophorion in the archonship of Apseudes, came 
to be preserved if the new calender did not go into operation at 
that time, since, if Meton’s calendar had been first introduced 100 
years after his akme, however much indebtedness to him might then 
be acknowledged, the innovation would be accredited popularly to 
thenameless man of affairs whoeffected the reform, not to the ancient 
computer of the system. And if Meton’s almanac and calendar 
had been published only privately in 433/2 Β. α., but used popu- 
larly in subsequent times, there was no reason for the state which 
first introduced it officially in 338/7 Β. Ο. to regard further the 
five cycles which had already elapsed: it would then have sufficed 
to establish, let us say, the 13th of Skirophorion or thereabouts 
337 B. Ο. as the starting-point of the Metonic era. This would 


1 Birds, 11. 9928. 
3 Monotropos quoted by Van Leeuwen on Aristophanes’ Birds, loc. cit. 
8p, 42. 4Z). 615 ff. 


892 W. S. Frerauson 


have been the historically important date—the one which should 
have impressed itself upon our tradition; as, of course, it has not 
done, for the obvious reason that it never existed.’ 

The determination of the calendar character of the years in the 
second century B. Ο. is made difficult through the existence during 
a period—of which the limits thus far determinable on epi- 
graphical evidence are 166/5 and 122/1 B.c.—of two distinct 
years at the same time, each with its distinct set of months, one, 
however, designated κατ᾽ ἄρχοντα, and the other κατὰ θεόν. When- 
ever a document is dated in the two systems the prytanies coin- 
cide with the months κατὰ θεόν, and the months κατ᾽ ἄρχοντα lag 
from a full month to one day only behind the months κατὰ θεόν: 
but documents, both in the years with two sets of months, and in 
years in between these, are also dated simply in terms of one year, 
which is, moreover, so far as can be judged,” the old lunar year. 
This fact tends to corroborate the view of Adolf Schmidt that the 
year κατὰ θεόν, with which the prytanies are in relation when the 
two systems exist side by side, is also the old lunar Fear—the 
year which entered into the Metonic cycle; and it is on this 
hypothesis that the table given above has been constructed. If 
this is true, what is the year κατ᾿ dpyovra? The solar year, 
according to Adolf Schmidt.’ This, however, is impossible, for 
in the year 122/1 B.o., in which the archon Nikodemos is located 
on too many evidences to be moved on any account, the 8th 
embolimos of Boedromion κατ᾽ ἄρχοντα coincided with the 9th of 
Boedromion κατὰ θεόν. This, however, proves, as J. Sundwall 


1The practice, begun in 838,7 s.c., of dating documents by giving not only the 
day of the prytany, but also the day of the month on which they were passed, simply 
reflects a change in the management of the public archives, which, as usual, accom- 
panied an epoch year. There exists, therefore, no more reason for making 3387 B. ο. 
the first of a Metonic cycle than for inferring a calendar change thirty years earlier 
(IG. II 52) when the day of the prytany was first put upon the public decrees. More- 
over, a dating by month and prytany from as early as 346/5 B. o. is found in the Samian 
cleruch document published by O. Ourtius Inschriften und Stud. zur Gesch. v. Samos. 
Progr., Labeck, 1877. 

2Sundwall Untersuch., Ὁ. 89, who. however, errs in assuming that it is a solar year 
where we have no means of judging. It is unthinkable that the Athenians changed 
from a lunar to a solar year and vice versa four or five times in the last two-thirds of 
this century. ; 

8Jahrb. f. Phil. 1884, pp. 651f. 


THe ATHENIAN CALENDAR 893 


has clearly pointed out,’ that, if either of these was a solar year, 
the summer solstice and the new lunar month must have practi- 
cally coincided in June 27th, 122 3.o. But new moons were 
visible in 122 B.o. on June 10th and July 9th. Consequently, 
κατ᾽ ἄρχοντα does not mean solar year any more than κατὰ θεόν 
does.” What then does it mean? We have as yet insufficient 
data to answer this question positively, but the conjecture is per- 
missible that it was a year of which the limits were determined 
by the archon, i.e., by his period of service. We might then 
think that the term failed to jibe with the other or senatorial 
year through a difference of decision as to the intercalation of a 
month or a day, but this explanation fails to satisfy one case of 
double dating by months, viz., 16. II 408, which is a decree 
passed in the archonship of Metrophanes (133/2 B.0.) on the 
29th of Elaphebolion car ἄρχοντα and the 12th of Munychion 
κατὰ θεόν. Here the difference is 12 or 13 days. How did it 
come that the archon year began 12 days later than the senatorial 
year, this is the question, since it is inconceivable that 12 days 
were intercalated in the archon year after it had once begun. 
There was nothing new in the existence of a separate archon 
year. In fact it had existed throughout the greater part of the 
fifth century Β. Ο., as Bruno Keil’ demonstrated some years ago. 
He claimed further that in that century the archon year had its 
series of lunar months, while the senatorial year had apparently 
only its series of prytanies, but A. Mommeen‘ has since shown 
that the archon and the senatorial year probably belong together. 
According to Keil’s view, to which Mommsen assents in this 
particular, the separate senatorial year was abandoned in 410 8. o. 


1Untersuchungen, pp. 82 f. 


' §This, in my judgment the only methodical conclusion, Sundwall fails to draw. 
Instead of doing so, he tries to change the date of Nikodemos; and, in fact, there was 
a coincidence of solstice and new moon in the year 1213.0. Hence he puts Nikode- 
mos in 121/0 8. o.— with the disastrous resulta noted below. Sundwall encounters a 
similar difficulty in the cases of Metrophanes and Achaios; the first must be shifted 
from 133/2 B. o. to 144/3 z. o., the latter from 166/5 B. o. to 165/48.0. This is, however, 
admissible only when Nikodemos is put in 121,0 8.o.; and not even then, since the 
successor of Metrophanes, Erg. (who is, doubtless, Ergokles of 132/1 3. ο. pace Sund- 
wall), and Meton (Klio VII, p. 222) would collide in 1438/2 5.0. 


8 Hermes XXIX, pp. 32 ff. 
4 Philologos 1908, pp. 348 ff. Of., however, ibid. 1902, pp. 214 ff. 


894 W. 8S. FERauson 


As we have seen, the divergence appears again in the second cen- 
tury B.o. This time the archon year has its own series of months, 
and it has different limits from the lunar-calendar year, which, how- 
ever, has now a fixed relation with the senatorial year, as during the 
two centuries which had intervened. Of course, the archon year 
had coincided with the calendar year for the same two centuries, 
and, since there was still a rough coincidence between the two 
years, the name of the archon was still employed to designate 
both. The Athena-year began 28 days after the calendar year, 
and the ephebe year two months later; so that there was no 
reason why the archon should not have his separate year also. 
But it is curious that it should have a different set of months, 
i.e., should stand in no fixed relation to the calendar year. This 
shows that it had its own cycle and its own reason for its beginning 
and ending, just as the archon-senatorial year had in the fifth cen- 
tury. In the earlier period, according to Bruno Keil’s reckoning,’ 
it had an ordinary length of 360 days and an intercalary length of 
800 days. There were seven intercalary yearsin every forty. This 
may or may not be correct; at any rate the archon-senatorial 
year did not fit in between the solstices, as is clear from the fact 
that in 411 B.o. it began on the 14th of Skirophorion,’ whereas 
in this year the solstice occurred, not 15 or 16 days before the 
new moon which was visible at the first of Hekatombaion, but 27 
days before that event.” Hence we need not be surprised that the 
archon-year in the 2d century B. o. disregarded the solstices also. 
We have no means of establishing the cycle which was followed 
in this epoch; for nothing of any value can be obtained from the 
double datings in 1383/2 B. o. and 122/1 B. o. so long as the begin- 
ning point of neither set of months is determinable. The upper 
epigraphical limit of the divergence between the archon and the 
calendar or senatorial year has been set at 166/5 B.c. in the con- 
viction that Sundwall* is right in placing 716. II 4516 ii, and II 
433 in the same year; in which case both, and with them the 
archon Achaios and the secretary Ἡρακλέων Ναν[ν] άκου Εὐπυρί- 
Sys, belong to 166/5 B.c. If this were approximately the real 


1 Hermes loc. cit., pp. 321 ff. 3Unger Millers Handbuch 13, p. 762. 
3 Aristotle Const. of Athens 32. 4Op. ctt., pp. 8 ff. 


THe ATHENIAN CALENDAR 395 


upper limit we might think that the acquisition of Delos in the 
winter of 167/6 Β. Ο. and the steps taken thereafter to shift the 
beginning of the Delian year round from Gamelion to Hekatom- 
baion had something to do with the establishment of a separate 
series of archon years. But our knowledge of this effort depends 
as yet upon Homolle’s interpretation’ of certain unpublished 
Delian documents, so that we are not at present in a position to 
discuss its details. Moreover, Sundwall has discovered that there 
existed from ca. 180 B. o. forward a different year from the calen- ' 
dar year, which, moreover, possessed a distinct set of months or 
subdivisions, and was used to define the terms of office of the 
so-called third mint magistrates. This was, doubtless, the archon 
year, both because we know of no other it can have been, and 
because Sundwall has made it very probable’ that the third mint 
magistrates were Areopagites; i.e., ex-archons, to whom the use 
of the archon year would, accordingly, be most natural. The data 
collected by Sundwall from the coins shows that the archon year 
began almost, if not altogether, as frequently after the senatorial 
calendar year as before it (10 to 12)’—a relation which is expli- 
cable on the hypothesis that either of them is the solar year only 
by assuming that the Metonic or Kallippic cycle was regularly 
violated during this century; since in it the lunar year began 
prior to the solar year only twice in every nineteen years. In the 
four cases‘ known to us from the inscriptions the archon year 
began after the senatorial or calendar year. We have, accord- 
ingly, to maintain, on any interpretation, that the relation thus 
suggested is accidental, since the coins show one year to have 
begun before the other only slightly more frequently than after it. 
From one of the inscriptional cases already referred to we learn 
that the archon year began more than a month later than the cal- 
ender year;’ that is to say, precisely as in the year to which the 
monetary series Herakleides-Eukles belonged.’ Is it thinkable 
1 BCH. V 25; XXVII 68, n. 1. 
3 Op. cit., pp. 10, 69 f. 8 Tbid., pp. 98 ff. 


4Five if JG. 11 5 4510 ii and II 433 do not belong to the same year. 


5 Unless there was the intercalation of a month in the archon year and none in the 
calendar year, which is, of course, possible; cf. Sundwall op. cét., p. 86. 
6Sundwall op. cit., p. 98. 


396 W. 5. FERGuson 


that when the lunar year was bound to end more than a month 
before the solstice, if the effort were being made at the time to 
keep the two together, an extra month was not intercalated? 
Sundwall affirms its necessity in the one case, but practically 
denies it in the other.’ At any rate, such an interval is absolutely 
without precedent, since in the two cycles which we can approxi- 
mately reconstruct the lunar year began nine times more than a 
month after the solstices, but never more than a month before it; 
for to bring this about under normal circumstances a succession 
of five ordinary years would be required. The facts are thus just 
what might have been expected. Official influence moved entirely 
in the direction of prolonging not shortening a year unduly. It 
was often possible for the δῆμος to decree, as it did to our knowl- 
edge in ca. 418 8. ο.:᾽ μένα δὲ ἐμβάλλειν ‘ExatovBatova τὸν νέον 
ἄρχοντα. On this occasion the object was to postpone the time 
for delivering the ἀπαρχαί to the goddesses at Eleusis*’—so sim- 
ple a matter was it for the Athenians to intercalate a month irregu- 
larly, or even an irregular month. On the other hand, failure to 
intercalate a month when it was due or overdue meant to shorten 
the year of the senate and magistrates to which these would 
naturally raise strenuous objections. 

There are thus, we contend, serious objections to the view 
maintained by Sundwall with equal audacity and keenness in a 
work otherwise rich in important results that the year κατὰ θεόν 
is the solar year—objections altogether aside from the insur- 
mountable chronological difficulties with which it is involved. 
For its acceptance requires us to transfer Nikodemos to 121/0 
and Metrophanes to 144/3 B.c. But as Sundwall himself puts it: 
Dies wird aber die weittragende Folge mit sich bringen dass die 
ganze Schrieberfolge, auf der die Archonten-Datierung von Fer- 
guson und Kirchner beruht (vgl. P. A. II 642 f.) fir das 2 
Jahrh. um ein Jahr verschoben wird. In other words, Xenokles, 
whose coincidence with the battle of Pydna (168 3.0.) is indis- 
putable,’ must be transferred trom 168/7 to 167/6 B.o.; Hagno- 


τ᾿ ΟΕ, op. cit., pp. 86 and 98. 316. 11 4, p. 59, No. 276 = Ditt. Syli.? 20, 1. 53. 
δ Keil, Hermes XXIX, p. 347, ἃ. 1; Ditt. ad loc. cit. . 
4Jacoby Apollodors Chronik, p. 349; cf. The Athenian Archons, p. 61. 


THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR > 897 


theos, whose coincidence with Ol. 160, 1 (140/39 B. o.) is demon- 
strated by the following words of Pausanias:' ὁ δὲ πόλεμος ἔσχεν 
οὗτος τέλος ᾿Αγνοθέου (with Wilamowitz’s’ certain correction of 
the MSS. ᾿Αντιθέου) μὲν ᾿Αθήνῃσιν ἄρχοντος, ὀλυμπιάδι δὲ ἑξηκο- 
στῇ πρὸς ταῖς ἑκατὸν, ἣν ἐνίκα Διόδωρος Σικυώνιος is transferred to 
139/8 B.0.; Jason and Dionysios μετὰ Παράμονον who are fixed 
in 125/4 and 112/1 by their coincidence with the Roman consuls 
for these years have to be transferred to 124/3 and 111/0 8. o.— 
a difficulty which cannot be eluded by the aid of the fact that the 
Attic year coincided in part with the Roman years 125 and 124 
B. 0. in the one case and the Roman years 112 and 111 8. ο. in 
the other case, thus leaving, it would seem, two alternatives; for 
the Roman consuls are uniformly equated with the Olympiads 
and Attic years which began with the July after they assdmed 
office, and that this was done officially in Athens is proved by the 
case of Argeios whose location in 97/6 B.o. is attested by his 
coincidence with the Roman consuls who took office on January 
1, 97 8.0. These difficulties seem to me altogether inevitable, 
and they are reinforced by another equally so in that Polykleitos, 
as shown above, can on no account be transferred from 110/9 to 
109/8 8.0. Moreover, just as Demochares (94/3 3. o.=Ol. 171, 
8) and Theokles (102/1 Β. ο.ΞΞ ΟἹ, 169, 3) are defined in the 
third year of an Olympiad by the presentation during their terms 
of office of peplot to Athena, so JG. II 421, which the secretary 
from the deme Butadai dates in 141/0 8. o.=Ol. 158, 4, is fixed 
in the year after the third of an Olympiad by the reference in 
1. 48° to the presentation of a peplos by Miltiades of Marathon 
whose services as agonothetes of the Panathenaia were the imme- 
diate occasion of this decree. Sundwall, however, must date it in 
140/39 8. 0. which is hardly possible. 

Nor are the corroborations adduced by Sundwall* for the shift- 
ing of the whole block of archons worth serious consideration. 
There was no reason why a decision, reached after the Pythais in 
106,8 8. ο., to send such delegations in the future δι᾽ ἐννεετηρίδος 
should compel the first under the new régime to follow the last 


1VIT. 16. 10. 
2 Sitezungsb. d. berl. Akad. 1904, p. 474. 810. 11 5, 421. 4 Op. cit., p. 88. 


398 W. 5. ἘΈΒαῦΒΟΝ 


under the old by precisely eight years, especially since a disloca- 
tion of the Athenian and Delphian enneeteris would be occasioned 
thereby.’ Hence there is no need to bring Agathokles (106/5 
Β. 6.) within eight years of Argeios (97/6 B.o.). Nor does it 
commend Sundwall’s transposition that by shifting the entire 
block forward a year the official order of the secretaries’ tribes 
is maintained in 100/99 B.co., but abandoned in the course 
or end of the year next following; for though there is no 
longer any reason for defining the oligarchic revolution which 
took place at this period in 103/2 Β. Ὁ. precisely, there is still 
conclusive evidence that it occurred prior to 101/0’ 8. ο., if not 
prior to 102/1 8B. Ο., as is probable; so that, granting the abroga- 
tion of the official order in this general period because of the 
oligarchic movement, we should expect it to have ceased to exist 
before 100/99 B. o. 

The chronological obstacles are thus altogether too consider- 
able to allow us to accept Sundwall’s interpretation of κατ᾽ 
ἄρχοντα and κατὰ θεόν, especially when this suffers already from 
troubles of a purely calendar sort, and is, at best, only one of two 
interpretations. 

On what principles the archon constructed his year or cycle of 
years the state of our knowledge leaves us still a long way from 
ascertaining, but we may venture the guess that the months of 
his year stood in somewhat the same relation to the committees 
of the Areopagos—for a body of approximately 225 members 
could not function well without sections or committees—as the 
months of the lunar year did to the sections of the senate of 600. 
And if this were the case we could understand why the ‘‘mint 
inspectors” of the Areopagos held office for a term which disre- 
garded both the limits and the months of the (senatorial-calen- 
dar) year for which the first two mint commissioners served. 


HarRvakD UNIVERSITY 


1See my article on ‘‘The Athenian Pythais’’ in Klio IX. 
2 Klio IV, pp. δ ff. 


THE USE AND EFFECT OF ATTIC SEALS 
By Rosert J. Bonner 


The use of seals was very common not only in Greece but 
throughout the Orient, even in remote antiquity. In Zakro sev- 
eral hundreds of clay seal impressions which belong to the 
Mycenaean period were found.’ ‘These may have been attached 
to bales of goods and were preserved as a record of commercial 
transactions.”* There is no evidence for the use of seals in the 
Homeric age; but the lots which bore some distinguishing mark 
that enabled each person to identify his own are in effect the 
same.’ In Athens it was the common practice to seal up any kind 
of receptacle or package which the owner or custodian desired to 
protect from unauthorized interference. Careful householders 
sealed their larders against pilfering slaves, and even against the 
women of their families.‘ Persons who intended to go on a jour- 
ney frequently protected their property by affixing seals. In the 
case of an antidosis, the parties to the exchange sealed up the 
property involved, including houses and other buildings.° Letters 
were regularly sealed.’ So also wills, contracts, and other docu- 
ments were generally sealed and deposited with trustworthy per- 
sons to prevent fraud; they were tied up with thread and sealed 
in such a way that the thread could not be removed without 
breaking the seal. 

1 During the classical period also an adhesive clay called γῇ σημαντρίς (Herod. ii. 38) 
or ῥύπος (also ῥύπον, Photius 8. v.) was very generally employed for seal impressions. 
The brittleness of clay as compared with wax in all probability led to the use of pro- 
tective caps κόγχαι, Aristoph. Wasps 585. 

2Bosanquet Journal of Hellenic Studies XXI, p. 339: Bosanquet’s conjecture 


regarding the purpose of these seal impressions is in a measure confirmed by the prac- 
tice of shipping merchandise in sealed packages mentioned by Pliny N. H. xxxv. 14. 


8Tliad vii. 175; cf. ili. 316: It is not likely that names were written on the lota. 
Cf. Paley’s note. Many have supposed the πίναξ rrucrés of Proitus was sealed ; Iliad 
vi. 169 and Leaf’s note. 


4Xen. Resp. Laced. vi. 4: Aristoph. Thesm. 415; Lysis. 1198. 

5 Aeach. Agam. 609. 6 Dem. 42. 2. 

™Thucy. i. 182; Eurip. Iph. in Aulis 321; cf. Lucian Timon 22. 
(CLAssIcaAL PHILOLOGY ΠῚ, October, 1908] 399 


400 Rosert J. BONNER 


The chief and original purpose of a seal was to safeguard.’ 
To prevent duplication of signet rings Solon is said to have 
enacted a law which forbade a seal maker to retain impressions of 
the seals which he sold.’ In spite of the law, however, it is said 
that a duplicate seal could be procured for a small sum.’ Lucian 
describes a clever method for removing and replacing a seal with- 
out the possibility of detection. The wax was cut through just 
under the impression by means of a heated needle and replaced by 
heating both surfaces in the same manner.‘ An amusing story of 
Lacydes the philosopher is preserved by Diogenes Laertius.’ It 
seems that he kept a well-stocked larder which he guarded care- 
fully. After sealing up the door he was accustomed to thrust the 
ring into the pantry through a small hole in the door, thinking in 
this way to secure it most effectually. His servants, however, 
soon discovered that they could go through the same process and 
have free access to the contents of the larder without fear of 
detection. 

Seals served also for purposes of identification. Messengers 
could be provided with seal impressions to identify them as 
accredited agents. Similarly a signet ring or its impression 
might serve as a pass in time of war.’ Here belong the so-called 
tesserae hospitales.*. An Athenian decree conferring honors on 
Straton, king of Sidon, for various services to the city refers to 
credentials of this kind, here called σύμβολα, which were issued 


1Cf. Demos, 33. 36. 2 Diog. Laert. i. 57. 
δ Aristoph. Thesm. 425. 
πρὸ τοῦ μὲν οὖν ἣν ἀλλ᾽ ὑποῖξαι τὴν θύραν 
ποιησαμέναισι δακτύλιον τριωβόλου 


Argillus, a messenger οὗ Pausanias in his treasonable correspondenee with Persia, 
provided himself with a duplicate seal in order to be able to read with safety the con- 
tents of a letter which aroused his suspicions. Thucy. i. 132. 


{Lucian Alex. 21. Siv. 59. 


6Plautus Pseudolus i. 1.58. πρὸς Λαΐδα τὴν Κορινθίαν ἐραστὴς ἀτοφράγισμα πέμψας 
ἐκέλενε παραγενέσθαι (Athenacus xiii, p. 585). Klearchus after his arrest at the instance 
of the Persian king gave to Ktesias who had been of service to him his seal σύμβολον 
φιλίας πρὸς τοὺς ἐν Λακεδαίμονι σνγγενεῖς καὶ οἰκείους. Plut. Artaz. 18. 

‘Aristoph. Birds 1213; cf. Plautus Οαρέϊτὶ ii. 3. 90. 


8Cf. Mommeen Rémische Forschungen I, pp. 338 ff. 


Tre Use ΑΝῸ EFFEoT oF ATTIC SEALS 401 


by the Senate.’ They were intended, we may surmise, to identify 
members of embassies and enable them to enjoy the privileges 
usually accorded to embassadors. They may have served also to 
identify Sidonian citizens sojourning in Athens upon whom 
certain rights and exemptions were conferred by an amendment 
to the decree. It is possible that the state seal of Athens was 
represented on these tesserae. 

The public seal was in the custody of the chairman of the pry- 
tanes.. Whenever the prytanes or the senate used a seal it was 
certainly the state seal in the hands of the chairman for the time 
being.” In Apollodorus v. Nicostratus the plaintiff maintains 
that the government (τὴν ἀρχήν) or a commission appointed by 
the senate should examine slaves in the possession of the state and 
transmit their answers under seal to the court.". No doubt a com- 
mittee of this kind, representing the senate, would use the state 
seal. Since public money was paid out under the authority of the 
senate it would seem probable that the state treasurers used the 
state seal in closing the treasury doors. But a decree of 435 or 
434 8. Ο., providing for the election of treasurers and defining 
their duties, required the treasurers of Athena to join them in 
depositing the money and sealing the doors of the treasury.’ 
Evidently a single seal would not suffice, and it is impossible to 
determine whether the state seal was used by these officials. The 
private seals of judicial officers such as the public arbitrators could 
very well be used in sealing up documents to be transmitted to 
the Forty;° but the language of Demosthenes in speaking of 
his accounts which were passed by a court under the presidency 

Ἰ ποιησάσθω δὲ καὶ σύμβολα ἡ βολὴ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, τὸν Σιδωνίων ὅπως ἂν ὁ δῆμος ὁ 
᾿Αθηναίων εἰδῆι ἐάν τι πέμπηι ὁ Σιδωνίων βασιλεὺς δεόμενος τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὁ 


Σιδωνίων εἰδῆι ὅταμ πέμπηι τινὰ ws αὐτὸν ὁ δῆμος ὁ ᾿Αθηναίων. Dittenberger Sylloge 
Inscriptionum Graecarum? 118. 20 ff. (date 370-362 8. ο.). 


* Arist. Ath. Const. 44.1; cf. Dittenberger 789. 39. 

3Isoc. 17. 33, where the pyrtanes sealed up the names of the dramatic judges 
deposited in an urn by the senate. 

4Demos. 53. 24. Dareste translates rh» ἀρχήν l’archonte, but the whole passage 
rather suggests prytanes. 


6 Dittenberger 21.15: οὗτοι δὲ ταμιεύοντον ἐμ πόλει ἐν τῦι ὁπισθοδόμοι τὰ τὸν Oedy 
χρέματα ὅσα δυνατὸν καὶ ὅσιον, καὶ συνανοιγόντον καὶ σνγκλειόντον τὰς θύρας τὸ ὁπισ- 
θοδόμο καὶ συσσεμαινόσθον τοῖς τὸν res ᾿Αθεναίας ταμίαις. 


SArist. Ath. Const. δ8. 2. 


402 Rospert J. BONNER 


of the logistae seems to point to the state seal, τὰς εὐθύνας ézre- 
σημαίνεσθε It has been suggested that goods, inspected by 
customs officer were sealed, but thus far no proof has been 
adduced.’ We know that goods confiscated by the state were 
listed and sealed officially.” Accordingly, if customs officers made 
seizures of merchandise for any reason, they doubtless protected 
the rights of the state by seals. It is now generally agreed the 
signet ring which Demos demanded from Cleon on dismissing him 
from his services was not the state seal but such a seal as a mas- 
ter intrusted to his steward.‘ 

There is but little trace of a general use of brands (seal 
impressions produced by burning) to indicate ownership. State 
slaves were always branded with the public seal.” Private owners 
branded only runaway slaves. Such a brand was a mark of dis- 
grace rather than of ownership. Animals were probably not 
branded to indicate ownership. It was the habit of priests to 
mark in some way animals approved for sacrifice. But it is not 
at all likely that a brand was used. At any rate Egyptian priests 
marked approved bulls by a strip of papyrus sealed around one of 
the horns.’ 

The making of wills and contracts was surrounded by no legal 
formalities in Athens. A will as well as a contract might even be 


1 Demos. De Corona 250. He could scarcely say to the people, * you sealed”’ if the 
logistae used their own seals. The practice of other cities supports this view to some 
extent. In litigation between Calymna and some citizens of Cos the public seal was 
used for evidence taken by a commission and documents copied from the archives: 
Dareste, Haussoulier et Reinach Inscriptions juridiques, p. 158. On the other hand, 
Plato in the Laws (856 A) provides that each of the judges in capital cases shall use 
his own seal. 

2Haase Annali dell’ Instituto di Corrispond. Arch. XI, p. 279; Boeckh Public 
Economy of the Athenians (Eng. trans.), p. 447, is uncertain. 

δ Aristoph. Frag. 378; Xen. Hellen. ii. 3. 21; cf. ibid. ii. 4. 18, where, if the reading 
τοὺς φιλτάτους is correct, ἀποσημαίνομαι is applied to persons in the sense of proscribe. 

4 καὶ viv ἀπόδος τὸν δακτύλιον, ws οὐκέτι | ἐμοὶ ταμιεύσεις͵ Aristoph. Knights 947. Of. 
Gilbert Beitrdge zur innern Geschichte Athens, pp. 90 ff. 

5Xen. Vect. iv. 21, ἀνδράποδα σεσημασμένα τῷ δημοσίῳ σημάντρῳ; cf. the branding 
of prisoners of war by Xerxes with στίγματα βασιλήια (Herod. vii. 233), and the 
branding of the Hellespont, Herod. vii. ὅδ. 

Srots δὲ δοκιμασθέντοις ἱερείοις σαμεῖον ἐπιβαλόντω ol lepol: Dittenberger Sylloge? 
653, 71. This inscription from Andania is cited by Schoemann, Griechische Alter- 
thtimer, II, p. 243, ἢ. 4. 


T Herod. ii. 38; cf. Plut. Moralia 338. 


THE Usk ΑΝῸ Errecot or ATTIC SEALS 403 


oral." As a rule certain formalities were observed, but they were 
demanded by custom not by law.’ The usual formalities were the 
affixing of seals by the makers in presence of a number of witnesses 
and the depositing of the documents with trustworthy persons. 
Occasionally the testator took the precaution of leaving one or 
more copies of his will.’ Whether the witnesses affixed their seals 
or not is a matter of dispute. Wyse‘ is on insecure ground when 
he cites the mention of seals in the plural’ in connection with wills 
as proof that the testator’s witnesses had joined him in sealing the 
instrument. For these wills were before the court and the origi- 
nal external*® seals must have been destroyed to enable the heirs to 
read the contents, unless they had access to a true copy of the 
will. But as testators did not as a rule leave duplicates, the 
chances are against this possibility.’ There are a number of ref- 
erences to witnesses in connection with wills and contracts but 
their seals are mentioned in two cases only. In speaking of the 
shortcomings of his guardians, Demosthenes says they should 
have summoned witnesses to join them in sealing his father’s will.’ 
This case merely proves that witnesses did sometimes affix their 
seals to documents. In the other case, however, a rather unusual 
document is mentioned which in some respects closely resembles 
a will. The mother-in-law of the two parties in the case against 
Spudias had loaned sums of money to both men. Before her 
death she left an account against Spudias sealed by her brothers 
as witnesses and possibly by herself.’ In view of the fact that the 


1 Meier-Schoemann-Lipsius Attisch. Process 595. 

?Dareste, Haussoulier et Reinach op. cit. 11. 1, p. 64. Wyse (Isaeus, Ὁ. 387) utters 
a timely warning against the tendency to apply to Attic wills the rules of Roman law. 

8Diogeiton’s brother (Lys. 32. 7) left a sealed will and a copy. Theophrastus 
(Diog. Laert. i. 51) left four copies of his will, witnessed and sealed (287 8. c.). 

4Tsae., Ὁ. 387. 

5 Demos. 45. 17; Aristoph. Wasps 584, 585. 

6] defer for the moment the discussion of the location of seals. 

TDem. 46. 28: διαθήκης οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἀντίγραφα ἐποιήσατο, ἀλλὰ σνγγραφῶν μέν, 
ἵνα εἰδῶσι καὶ μὴ παραβαίνωσι, διαθηκῶν δὲ of. Beauchet correctly explains this pas- 
sage as follows: Tout ce qu’il est permis d’en induire, c’est que l’on évitait pendant 
la vie du testateur de tirer des copies de l’acte qui auraient pu compromettre le secret 
du testament. 

8 Demos. 28. δ. 

9Demos. 41.9: ἣν μὲν γὰρ τὸ ἀργύριον rapa τῆς Πολνεύκτου δεδανεισμένος γυναικός, 
γράμματα δ᾽ ἔστιν ἃ κατέλιπεν ἀποθνήσκουσ᾽ ἐκείνη, μάρτυρες δ᾽ οἱ τῆς γυναικὸς ἀδελφοὶ 


404 ROBERT J. BONNER 


speaker expressly calls them witnesses (μάρτυρες) there is no rea- 
son to regard them as the woman’s representatives («vupcoc).’ 
These were necessary only in legal proceedings where the woman 
herself was involved. The document was really an ante-mortem 
statement or dying declaration and the brothers were present 
simply to prevent subsequent disputes between the heirs, ἕνα 
μηδὲν δυσχερὲς ἡμῖν εἴη πρὸς ἀλλήλους. Consequently seals were 
not required to render the document valid or admissible.’ But in 
so far as it amounted to an expression of her desire that the money 
involved should not go to Spudias, but should be divided amongst 
the heirs, it had the effect of a regular will. In any event this 
case and the use of witnesses’ seals by executors create a strong 
presumption that testators also might avail themselves of the 
additional safeguard afforded by the seals of witnesses; and it is 
a mere accident that such seals are not mentioned. In Egypt 
both contracts and wills were sealed by witnesses.’ 

The fact that wills were sometimes successfully tampered with 
affords no ground for maintaining that witnesses did not affix their 
seals. For there is abundant evidence that seals were frequently 
not effective. They were not hard to imitate’ and could even be 
removed and replaced in the manner already described. Access 


παρόντες ἅπασι καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἑπερωτῶντες͵ ἵνα μηδὲν δυσχερὲς ἡμῖν εἴη πρὸς ἀλλήλους. 
Ibid. 21: ταυτὶ γὰρ τὰ γράμματα κατέλιπε μὲν ἡ Πολυεύκτου γυνή... .. ὁμολογου- 
μένων δὲ τῶν σημείων x. τ. X. 
Some Athenian women in the management of their households made use of seals: 
πᾶσιν ὑμῖν λέγω λαμβάνειν τῶν ἐμῶν 
χρημάτων νῦν ἔνδοθεν͵ καὶ 
μήδεν οὕτως εὖ σεσηυά»ν- 
θαι τὸ μῆ οὐχὶ 
τοὺς ῥύπους ἀνασπάσαι. 
— Chorus of Women, Aristoph. Lysist. 1195 ff. 
In Epicrates v. Athenogenes (Hyper. 5. 18) Antigona a female friend of the defendant 
is said to have joined in sealing a contract: ταῖς συνθήκαις ἰσχυρίζῃ, as ἐνεδρεύσαντ ἐς 
pe σὺ καὶ ἡ ἑταίρα cou ἐσημήνασθε. But it is more than likely that she merely helped 
Athenogenes to induce the plaintiff to accept the seal and contract. 
| Dareste Les plaidoyers civils de Demosthéne I. Ὁ. 165, n. 5. 
2The debt was proved also by the ante-mortem statement of Polyeuctus, the 
woman's husband, in the presence of Aristogenes (Dem. 41. 8). 


8See Wyse Isaeus, Ὁ. 387, for a number of instances. 
4Cf. Beauchet Histoire du droit privé des athéniens III, pp. 659, 662. 
5 Aristoph. Thes. 4256; Thucy. i. 182. 


THe Usk anp Errerot or ATTIo SEALS 405 


to documents could be gained by bribing the depository or his 
servants. And it was perhaps not difficult to secure the services 
of an expert like Pythodorus against whom the seals of prytanes 
and choregi were not proof.’ It is likely then that there is con- 
siderable truth in the bitter statement of Polybius that ten check- 
ing clerks, as many seals and twice as many witnesses could not 
guarantee the safety of a talent in the hands of a Greek.’ 

The purpose and effect of seals affixed by testators, heirs, exe- 
cutors, witnesses, contracting parties, and sureties was primarily 
to safeguard the documents and to insure the performance of the 
bequests and provisions. An additional effect of the testator’s 
seal was to authenticate the document as his last will and testa- 
ment. In other cases the affixing of the seal implied certain lia- 
bilities. The seal of a party to a contract not only safeguarded 
it and identified him as a beneficiary, but bound him to perform 
its terms. Sureties were generally mentioned in a contract and 
this was sufficient to render them liable in case the principals 
defaulted. But if a surety joined in sealing a contract and parole 
evidence could be produced that he had agreed to be surety his 
seal would have the effect of making him liable, even though his 
name was not mentioned in the contract. The leading case on 
this point is Androcles v. Lacritus." Androcles had lent money 
to the defendant’s brother on a maritime contract. Lacritus was 
surety and though his name did not appear in the contract he 
affixed his seal. The present suit was brought against him, not 
as surety but as heir to his brother’s estate. But Androcles con- 
stantly insists on his liability as surety and we may reasonably 
conclude that his seal supported by parole evidence would have 
rendered him responsible in case the suit had been for perform- 
ance of suretyship. An extension of this doctrine of liability 
appears in the case against Spudias already cited. The mother- 
in-law of the parties had left an account against Spudias sealed by 
her brothers as witnesses. At her death the document was opened 
by the parties and their wives, who recognized the seals. After 
reading the document, the men resealed and deposited it. The 
plaintiff claimed very confidently that since the defendant joined 

1Isoc. 17. 23; Demos. 38.16. ‘*Isoc. 17.33. %Polyb. vi.56. ‘Demos, 35.15. 


406 RoBert J. BONNER 


in sealing this paper he must be regarded as acknowledging the 
indebtedness of which it was evidence.’ 

The first edition of Charicles’ contained the statement “impor- 
tant documents, although they were to be sealed up, were also, it 
seems, attested by a seal beneath the writing.” Gneist’ took 
exception to this suggestion of Becker, and Goll, in his revision 
of Charicles, accepted Gneist’s view and altered the text accord- 
ingly. Gneist’s statement that neither among the Greeks nor the 
Romans can the use of a subseal (Untersiegel) be proved has gone 
unchallenged. Now the position of a seal on a document had no 
bearing whatever on its legal effect which depended entirely on 
the intention of the person who affixed the seal. This intention 
could be proved either by the document itself or by parole evi- 
dence. The outer seal (Verschlusssiegel) was more popular 
because it seemed to afford better protection against fraud;‘ but 
there is one class of document including judgments, awards, 
receipts, discharges, and certified copies, in which the subseal 
must have been used. For example, the seal affixed to Demoes- 
thenes’ accounts by the court could not have been an outer seal.’ 
A person who received such a discharge must be able to display 
the seal intact. So too, the Milesian award sent to the Messenians 
certified by the state seal could not serve to protect them in the 
possession of the property in dispute unless it could be exhibited 
without destroying the seal.“ There is no indication that the 
awards of private arbitrators were sealed, but in view of the gen- 
eral practice of sealing all kinds of instruments, it would be haz- 
ardous to assume that they were never sealed.’ If seals were 


Ἰταῦτα δ᾽ ἀναγνούς, εἰ μὲν αὐτῷ μηδὲν προσῆκε μηδ᾽ ἀληθῆ τὰ γεγραμμέν᾽ ἣν, τί δή 
ποτ᾽ οὐκ εὐθὺς ἠγανάκτει περὶ αὐτῶν; τί δὲ συνεσημαίνετο πάλιν τὰ μηδὲν ὑγιὲς ὄντα 
μηδ' ἀληθῆ Ὑράμματα; τοντὶ γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς δήπου μὴ πᾶσιν ὁμολογῶν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις 
ποιήσειεν.---- Demos. 41. 22. 

2P, 159 of the English translation by Metcalfe. 

δ Die Formellen Vertrdge, u. 8. w., Ὁ. 457. 

4In view of the number of frauds in connection with documents it is remarkable 
that we have only two appeals to handwriting. Two slaves are mentioned who were 
able to detect readily any changes made in the documents they had written. — Demos. 
29. 21; 33. 17. 

5 De corona 250. 6 Dittenberger 314, 39. 

7Demos. 36. 16; Isoc. 18. 10. 


Toe Use anp ErFeot or ATTIc SEALS 407 


affixed they could have been only subseals. Lipsius' in a brief 
note on Demosthenes’ accounts says that the seal was not a real 
subseal, but was merely an attesting or “Ο. K.” (als-richtig-aner- 
kennen) seal. This amounts to an admission that the seal at least 
was not an outer one; and his attempt to reconcile it with 
Gneist’s doctrine by trying to distinguish it from a subseal with- 
out indicating the meaning of the term Untersiegel as he con- 
ceives it, is of no avail. In modern practice all seals on legal 
documents are alike subseals. Evidently the Athenians prized a 
multiplicity of seals. ‘It was their duty,” says Demosthenes in 
speaking of his father’s executors, “to bring a number of (πολλούς) 
witnesses and have them counterseal the will.” The fact that 
they used outside seals on documents is no proof that they did 
not also use subseals on the same documents. For example one 
is strongly tempted to believe with Wyse that seals on wills before 
a jury were those of the testators; and, as has been pointed out, 
only subseals of testators could be intact at that stage of the 
dispute. 

Gneist’ further asserts that the German idea of a seal as a 
solemn confirmation of the signature (feierliche Bestarkung der 
Unterschrift)is foreign to both Greek and Romans. This com- 
parison is misleading, for the modern seal has undergone many 
changes. It was introduced into England by the French and 
served for signature." In this country the seal is practically a 
pure formality. Often the requirement of statute law is fulfilled 
by a written scroll or printed rectangle containing ‘‘seal’’ or 
“TL, 8.” written or printed. Still at common-law a deed is suffi- 
ciently executed if sealed; it need not be signed.” The Greek 
seal then corresponds exactly to the common-law seal which was 
not accompanied by a signature.” This similarity is in no wise 
affected by the fact that the Greeks usually placed the seal on the 
outside of the document. 

Tue UNiversITy oF CHICAGO 


1 Attisches Recht, p. 106, n. 206. 3 Demos, 28. 5. 5 Op. cit., p. 457. 

4The Saxons used the cross, the seal of God, whence comes the “‘mark’’ of the 
illiterate man. 

Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, Vol. I, pp. 94, 506; Vol. IT, p. 228. 

¢ Signatures in the modern sense do not occur until Roman times: Owy. Pap. I. 105. 


THE ORIGIN OF QUIN-CLAUSES' 
By Frank HamILtron Fow Ler 


The results of Kienitz’’ study of quin may be briefly summed 
up as follows. Quin was a compound of the interrogative adverb 
qut and the negative ne and so meant originally “why not?’’; 
with this meaning it appears in the imperative-interrogative sen- 
tence; the use of quin with the imperative and in declarative 
sentences is derived from the interrogative-negative use; and the 
conjunction quzn, also, is derived from the interrogative adverb. 
Recent scholarship has in general acquiesced in these results; but 
that there are some dissenting voices, especially in respect to the 
conjunction, reference to the grammars will show.’ 

Obviously the discussion of the origin of the quin-clause should 
be preceded by a study of the uses of the particle quin in inde- 
pendent sentences. 

Whatever theory be held as to the origin of quin in declarative 
sentences, certainly no one would say that the value actually 
appearing here is either negative or interrogative. The theory 
that this use of quin is derived from the interrogative use seen, 
e. g., in quin taces? goes back, so far as modern scholarship is 
concerned at least, to the programme of Kienitz mentined above.‘ 
This was published in 1878. In 1881 in the second volume of 
_ the American Journal of Philology appeared Warren’s paper 
establishing the existence in Latin of a positive non-interrogative 
particle ne; and in 1888 in the second volume of the Indoger- 
manische Forschungen, Persson connected this particle with 


1Jn the preparation of this paper 1 haveconfined myself almost entirely to Plautus 
and Terence. The complete collections of examples it is impossible to print here, 
though it is believed that such a presentation would strengthen the argument. 

*Kienitz De quin particulae apud priscos scriptores latinos usu; Morris Prin- 
ciples and Methods in Syntax, p. 155: ‘‘In consequence of the abundance and variety 
of the material, the history of guin is more completely and more surely known than 
that of any other conjunction ;’’ Lindsay Syntax of Plautus, p. 109. 

8 Bennett Grammar 2% 3 and 7; Hale-Buck Grammar, Index, under ‘‘quin.”’ 

4For qui see Kienitz ‘‘ Qui,”’ p. 554. I omit discussion of a possible hercle quin, 
alioquin, etc. 
(CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY ITI, October, 1908] 408 


THe ORIGIN OF Qurn-CLAUSES 409 


the Indo-European pronominal stem ne, the representatives of 
which he traced through the several languages. Persson, while 
- admitting the existence of an interrogative-negative quin seen in 
the interrogative sentences and also, with derived meaning, with 
the imperative, thought it probable that the qui used with the 
indicative was a compound of the intensive particle quiz, seen in 
hercle qui, etc., and this positive particle -ne. This derivation 
has been adopted by Walde in his Hiymologisches Worterbuch. 
I accept this as offering an explanation of the declarative quin 
perfectly simple and clear and, even if the existence of an inter- 
rogative quin be admitted, altogether preferable to one in which 
it is necessary to explain the disappearance of the negative, inter- 
rogative, and imperative forces supposedly at one time attached to 
the particle. 
The meaning of quin declarative is illustrated in the following 
examples. 
Most. 456. Eho, an tu tetigisti has aedis? // Cur non tangerem? 
Quin pultando, inquam, paene confregi foris. 
// Tetigistin? // Tetigi, inquam, et pultavi 
Clearly here the quin-sentence assents to the preceding but adds 
a more important and therefore more emphatic statement. The 
quin points back to the preceding sentence and indicates a kind 
of opposition to it as being an insufficient statement. Similarly in 
Capt. 560. Credidi esse insanum extemplo, ubi te appellavit Tynda- 
rum. 
// Quin suom ipse interdum ignorat nomen neque scit 
qui siet. , 
This force of guin is made more explicit by the addition of etiam 
as in 
Cas. 93. Quia certumst mihi, 
Quasi umbra, quoquo tu ibis te semper sequi. 
Quin edepol etiam, si in crucem vis pergere, 
Sequi decretumst: 
So in Men. 806, Mil. 301, 1147, Capt. 289, Cas. 606, Poen. 570. 


Most. 954 Erras pervorse, pater: 
Nam nisi hinc hodie emigravit aut heri, certo scio 
Hic habitare. // Quin sex mensis iam hic nemo habitat. 


410 FranK HAMILTON FOWLER 


Here there is opposition to a preceding statement not as being 
insufficient but as being false. The opposition is less direct but 
none the less real in the following examples: 

Merc. 935. Certum exsequist, 

Operam ut sumam ad pervestigandum ubi sit illaec. 
// Quin domist. 
Poen. 672. Rex sum, si ego illum hodie an med hominem adlexero. 
// Quin hicquidem tuos est. 
Persa 485. Credo edepol, credo inquam tibi. // Iam liberta auctu’s? 
// Enicas. 
Quin tibi me dico credere. 
Stich. 593. Edepol te vocem lubenter, si superfiat locus. 
// Quin tum stans obstrusero aliquid strenue. 

Quin is never used as a mere responsive; and, on the other 
hand, it is not used as a mere intensive serving to emphasize its 
sentence or some word in it. It always points backward and serves 
to express the relation existing between the preceding sentence 
and its own, at the beginning of which it stands. That relation is 
seen to be some kind of opposition varying all the way from “nay, 
on the contrary,’’ to ‘“‘yes, and more than that.” With this oppo- 
sition goes very naturally some feeling of impatience or the like. 

There is no reason why quin with the force which it has in the 
indicative declarative sentence should not appear also with the 
subjunctive; and, on the other hand, there is no special reason why 
it should. It possesses no force fitting it to assist in expressing 
a volitive or any other subjunctive idea. If it were true that quin, 
through its use in the imperative-interrogative sentence, had 
acquired the power of expressing urgency and so was possessed 
of a special affinity for the imperative, we should expect to find it 
showing a special affinity also for the subjunctive in its volitive 
forces. The fact that it is not so found is evidence that it never 
had such a force. This rarity of quin with the subjunctive is 
noted by Hale Cum Constructions, p. 105. In Plautus and 
Terence the following examples are certain enough to be quoted: 

Poen. 570. Quin etiam deciderint vobis femina in talos velim. 

Cas. 609. Quin hercle di te perdant postremo quidem. 
and Truc. 230, Miles 1125 quoted below. I shall add Mil. 426, 
by others taken as interrogative. The etiam of the first example 


THE ORIGIN OF Quin-CLAUSES 411 


and the potius of Miles 1125 clearly indicate what is equally true 
of the other examples, namely that quin with the subjunctive has 
the semi-conjunctional force seen in its use with the indicative. 
We may compare the use of immo in 
Merc. 1015. Eamus intro // Immo dicamus senibus legem censeo 
Prius quam abeamus, qua se lege teneant contentique 
sint. 

Whatever may have been the origin of the quin used with the 
imperative, certainly that use of the particle furnishes no evidence 
for either an interrogative or a negative value. It actually pos- 
sesses neither force; and whatever may be possible it is not neces- 
sary to suppose that it was derived from an interrogative-negative 
adverb meaning ‘“‘why not?”’ So far as I can see the force of 
quin when used with the imperative does not differ from that of 
the particle when used with the indicative. Here, too, quin serves 
to express more or less impatient opposition to something that 
precedes. The few examples quoted must serve for illustration. 

Phor, 223. Aufer mi “oportet”: quin tu quid faciam impera. 

And. 449. Quin namst? // Puerilest. // Quid id est? // Nil // Quin 

dic, quid est? 

Merc. 955. I modo. 

// Propter istanc. // Imodo // Ergocura. // Quin tu 
ergo i modo. 
In the last two examples the opposition shows more of impatience 
—impatience at the delay. In the two to follow we have little 
more than exclamations of impatience: 


Men. 416. Quin tu tace modo. 
Rudens 1170. Quid tu i dierecta cum sucula et cum porculis. 


As in Merc. 955 so in Pseud. 1016, Rudens 628, and Phor. 882 
the ‘‘pointing-back” force of quin is indicated by the accompany- 
ing ergo. Of more significance is the quin etiam of Most. 422 
and the quin potius of Rudens 1011. There can be no question 


1Ramsay, Excursus to Mostellaria, regards quin followed by the imperative as 
elliptical. Quin aspice is equivalent to Aspice, quin aspicis? This, of course, does 
away with the imperative use of quin. Sonnenachein’s insistence that some cases of 
quin with the imperative should be followed by the interrogation point (C. R. XVI, 
p. 167 and XXIX, p. 314) I cannot understand. 


412 ΕΑΝ Hamitton Fowler 


concerning the propriety of an expression of impatient opposition 
preceding an imperative or other expression of will, the purpose of 
the command being to remove the condition to which opposition 
is felt. The use of quin with the imperative may be compared 

with that of immo with the same mood. : 

Most. 583. Quid si hic manebo potius ad meridiem? 

// Immo abi domum. verum hercle dico: abi domum 
// Quin vos mihi faenus date. 
So Merc. 385, Eid. 204, Cist. 521, And. 523, Phor. 935. 

There are about one hundred and forty quin-questions in Plautus 
and Terence. Only the following need discussion in connection 
with the statement that quin never inquires for a reason. 

Pseud. 501. Quin dictumst mihi? 
is answered by a quia; but the manuscript reading is cur non." 

Stichus 576. Quin vocasti hominem ad cenam? // Nequid adveniens 

perderem. 
If the nequid sentence is taken as a purpose clause it would indi- 
cate a meaning “why not?” for quin. But the sentence may be 
an expression of obligation or propriety or it may be an expres- 
sion of resolve thrown back upon the past (see below p. 422). 
Merc. 190. Quin, sceleste, eam abstrudebas, ne eam conspiceret pater? 
// Quia negotiosi eramus nos nostris negotiis. 
The emendation of quia to quin is so easy that this single example 
should have little or no weight in establishing a meaning of ‘why 
not?” for quin. Quin does not appear in indirect questions’ with — 
a meaning “why not?” Contrast the use of qui in 
Hec. 279. nec qui hoc mi eveniat scio. 


Of these questions in Plautus and Terence eight have first per- 
son plural, eight first person singalar, and three third person. 
The great mass, about one hundred and twenty,’ have second person. 
Of the cases with second person all have present tense except four 


1 Kienitz read quin in Poen. 1317; but Goetz aud Schoell there read cur non. 

*Liv. xl. 47.4. Cum undique acclamassent, quin ederet, quid fieri velit is simply 
an imperative question put into indirect discourse. So Livy iii. 62. 14; Ourtius v. 5; 
Livy iv. 43, 11. 

8 The ambiguity of -ere of deponent verbs makes exactness here impossible. 


THE ORIGIN OF Quzn-CLAUSES 413 


with the perfect and one with the imperfect. There is one case 
of perfect first person. In the examples with the second person 
present the act questioned about is one not yet performed but one 
manifestly desired by the speaker. Hence the questions are vir- 
tual commands. That they were felt as commands is indicated by 
the expressions used in referring to them— hortatur in Cas. 764, 
imperas in Merc. 496, dictum oportutt in Merc. 124, oras in Persa 
899, vis in Persa 766, quaeso in Amph. 775 (quaeso with the 
imperative, e. g., in Asin. 596). The question is paralleled with 
the imperative in Most. 815, Capt. 636, Trin. 1026, Curc. 611, 
Pseud. 891, 1183. 

The questions with the first person plural are also virtually 
commands. Formally these sentences are questions relative to 
the act of the person addressed in connection with the person 
speaking. The first person singular questions are spoken in 
soliloquy, i. e., the first person is at the same time second person; 
and the imperative value of the question is manifest here also. 


Merc. 582. Quid stamus? quin ergoimus.... ? 
Rud. 236. Quin voco, ut me audiat, nomine illam suo? 
Ampelisca. 


The rare questions with the third person are also imperative in 
effect: 

Curc. 251. Palinure, quid stas? Quin depromuntur mihi 

Quae opus sunt... ? 

The ecquis questions may be compared— 

Capt. 830. Heus ubi estis? ecquis hic est? ecquis hoc aperit ostium? 

Since quin vocas? meant, “Why don’t you invite?” or, 
“Won't you invite?” implying always “It is my will that 
you invite,” we might well expect to find examples like quin 
vocasti? meaning, ‘‘Why didn’t you invite?” or ‘Didn’t you 
invite?” implying that the act formally questioned about was one 
which was not accomplished, but one the accomplishment of 
which was desirable, and hence should have been done.’ I quote 
all the examples of quin-questions with a past tense: 


1In these questions, in the answer to the question in Stichus 576, and in the pas- 
sage quoted below from Rudens 378 we come upon the question of the origin of the 
Subjunctive of Obligation or Propriety. See Elmer Studies in Latin Moods and 
Tenses; Bennet Critique of Recent Subjunctive Theories; Hale-Buck Grammar. 


414 FRANK HAMILTON FOWLER 


Merc. 189. Eho tu, eho tu quin cavisti, ne eam videret, verbero? 
190. Quin, sceleste, eam abstrudebas, ne eam conspiceret pater? 
Quia negotiosi eramus nos nostris negotiis. 
622. Quin percontatu ’s hominis quae facies foret 
vee 
Rud. 841. Quin occidisti extemplo? // Gladius non erat 
// Caperes aut fustem aut lapidem. 

Stich.576. Quin vocasti hominem ad cenam? // Nequid adveniens 

perderem. 

Trin. 290. lacrumas haec mihi, quom video, eliciunt, 

Quia ego ad hoc genus hominum duravi. Quin prius me 
ad pluris penetravi? | 
That which has happened to these questions may happen to a 
question without quin. Compare with Merc. 189 
Rudens 378. Cavistis ergo tu atque erus ne abiret, quom scibatis? 
// Quid faceret? // Si amabat, rogas quid faceret? 
adservaret 
Dies noctesque: in custodia esset semper. 

If now the quin-question never inquires for a reason and is 
always rhetorical, i. e., always implies a command, it cannot be 
justly said that we have evidence here for an original meaning 
“why not?” unless it can be shown that such a question is neces- 
arily or at least probably derived from one that does inquire for a 
reason. It is of course admitted that a “why not?” may imply a 
command. 

Mil. 1254. Tace, ne audiat. // Quid astitisti obstupida? cur non 

pultas? 
But in view of the numerous sentence-questions' in Plautus and 
Terence with imperative effect, it can be said with certainty that 
there is nothing in the nature of tha quin-sentence that demands 
a rhetorical ‘why not?” as the meaning for quin. The following 
may be noted as illustrations: 


Bacch. 777. Taces? 


Persa 633. Tacen an non taces? 
Curc. 41. Etiam taces? 


Truc. 937. Malam rem is et magna magno opere serva tibi viaticum. 
Phor. 930. In’ hinc malam rem cum ista magnificentia? 
Persa 412. Accipin argentum? accipesis argentum, impudens. 

Tene sis argentum. etiam tu argentum tenes? 

Possum te facere ut argentum accipias, lutum? 


1 Morris A.J.P. X. 397 ff., XI. 16 ff. and 146 ff. 


THE ORIGIN OF Quin-CLAUSES 415 


Truc. 373. Dan savium? // immo vel decem. 


Bacch. 1168. Abin hinc? 
Aul. 660. Fugin hinc ab oculis? abin an non? 
Persa 275. Scelerate, etiam respicis? 


Even if we should admit the literal meaning ‘“‘why not?’’ for 
quin in the pre-Plautine language, it would still be difficult if not 
impossible to explain the state of affairs in Plautus according to 
the orthodox view. Would it be possible for a word meaning 
“why not?’ to be restricted in its application to rhetorical use? 
And how could quzn pass over to use with the imperative—as it 
is supposed to have done—so long as it retained its interrogative 
and negative meaning? If, however, it be said that the conscious- 
ness of the meaning “why not?” in connection with quin was lost, 
the last vestige of an argument for such a meaning disappears. ' 

If we place beside such questions as those just quoted the 
following quin-questions, an explanation of the use of quin is at 
once suggested that is recommended by its simplicity. 

Merc. 494. Quin taces? // Muto imperas. 

Men. 915. Quin tu is in malam crucem? 

Persa 424.2 Cedo sis mihi argentum, da mihi argentum, impudens. 

Possum a te exigere argentum? argentum inquam cedo. 
Quin tu mihi argentum reddis? nilne te pudet? 


Curc. 94. Quin das savium? 
Mil. 1087. Quid hic nunc stas? quin abis? 
Men. 1417. Quin respicis? 


That explanation is that quin is used much as in the case of 
the declarative sentence to give expression to more or less impatient 
opposition felt to something that precedes. The more direct 
comparison, however, is with the quin used with the imperative, 
examples of which have been quoted above. In the first two 
examples the questions are little more than exclamations of impa- 
tience. In Persa 424 the quin explicates the impatient opposition 
felt at the delay in the obeying of a command. In Miles 1087 

1Morris Prin. and Methods, Ὁ. 167, remarks that the interrogative force (of quin) 


is still further weakened by the extension to quin dic quin abi; while on p. 134 he has 
said that the imperative mode is incompatible with interrogation. 


2 The importance of thisexample is increased by the fact that the lines are intended 
as a kind of echo of ll. 412-414 quoted above. 


8 Wagner translates, ‘‘ Won't you look around?’’ 


416 | FraNK HAMILTON FOWLER 


the opposition is to the implication of the preceding question, and 
the same thing is true in the case of Miles 1387, Trin. 802, Haut, 
831, Asin. 597. A similar opposition is implicit in such examples 
of the imperative as Persa 600 Quid stas? adi, Men. 676, Cas. 
749, Truc. 175, Aul. 444. The pointing-back force of quin is 
sometimes indicated by another particle used with quin or by a 
conditional or causal clause. For example, potius in Cas. 100, 
ergo in Merc. 582, Asin. 850, s2, ita, etc., in Pseud. 638, quando 
in Miles 1085. The equivalence of quin in these questions with 
the quin of declarative sentences is indicated by 

Cas. 285. Quin, si ita arbitrare, emittis me manu? // Quin id volo. 

Merc. 724. Quin dicis? // Quin, si liceat- - 

Most. 672. Quin tu istas mittis tricas? // Quin quid vis, cedo. 

The use of etiam with imperative questions’ supports the 
explanation of quin here advanced. That particle came to have 
the power of expressing impatient opposition to something that 
has been said or done. This force appears in the questions of the 
etiam rogas? type. 

Amph. 376. Etiam clamas, carnufex? 

381. Etiam muttis? // Iam tacebo. 

Aul. 424. Etiam rogitas? 

In such cases the etiam points backward only because the verb to 
which it belongs refers to that which has just taken place. If 
now the speaker of Amph. 381 had said, Htiam, tace, it would 
seem that the circumstances and the face would make it clear that 
the eliam was meant to express impatience with the muttering of 
the other speaker; and of course this would be equally true if 
some other equivalent form were used in place of face. My point 
becomes clearer from a consideration of two interpretations of 


Phor. 542. Etiam tu hinc abis? 
The question simply is whether the efiam expresses impatience 
with something which the abis? is intended to correct or whether 
the etiam expresses impatience with the act of abis itself.” There 
are some twenty-three of these etiam and etiamne imperative 


1Compare Morris A.J.P. X. 431, XI. 41, and XI. 166. 
2Of. Morris as above and Elmer ad loc. 


THE OBIGIN OF Qurnw-CLAUSES 417 


questions in Plautus and Terence and five consist of etiam taces? 
(Curc. 41, Persa 152, Trin. 514, 790, Adel. 550) with which 
may be compared, taces?, quin taces?, tace, and quin tace. If my 
explanation is correct such an example as the following would 
mean, ‘What, asleep under these circumstances! Won’t you 
wake up?” 


Most. 383. Etiam vigilas? 


Τὴ this examination of the uses of guin we have discovered no 
evidence of a meaning “why not?’’ Adopting the derivation of 
Persson for the quin of the declarative sentence we have found 
a meaning consistent with that derivation present not only in the 
declarative sentence but also in the imperative and interrogative 
sentences. That function consists in the explication of opposition 
to something that precedes. Wecome now to the question of the 
origin of the quin-clause. What was the paratactic expression 
from which that clause has been derived? And first, is there evi- 
dence that the quin ever meant “why not?” 

If the paratactic quin-sentence was a subjunctive question we 
should expect to find examples of that independent question 
actually existing in the literature. The infrequency of this con- 
struction, Morris thinks, is the sole gap in the history of quin. 
The only example quoted by anyone with confidence is 

Mil. 426. Me rogas? hem, quisim? // Quin ego hoc rogem quod nes- 

ciam. 
But this is by no means necessarily interrogative; it may be 
declarative and the subjunctive express the resolve of the speaker.’ 
That the first person singular subjunctive was used in Plautus 
with volitive force is shown by the examples to be noticed below 
(p. 421). (Note especially rogem in Trin. 758.) That quin 
could be used with the subjunctive is shown by the examples 
quoted on p. 410. That qui could be used with an expression 
of resolve is shown by 


Mil. 1124. Quin si voluntate nolet, vi extrudam foras. 


1** Why shouldn't I ask?” is expressed in Stichus 383 by Quidni rogitem? Lucre- 
tius i. 798: Quin potius constituas? which Munroe translates ‘* Why not rather hold?”’ 
should also be considered declarative, ‘‘ Nay, rather hold.” 


418 FrRaNK HAMILTON FOWLER 


Do the clauses themselves show evidence for a meaning ‘“‘why 
not?” for quin? In the case of the nulla causa est quin sentences 
an original interrogative force may be recognized as possible; but 
the supposition of such a meaning is not necessary, as I shall 
attempt to show later. With such expressions as nequeo contineri, 
non possum, numquam erit tam avarus, etc., no interrogative 
force is discernible. Indeed Morris, though in one place’ he 
speaks of the quin-clauses as originally indirect questions, later’ 
says that the quin-sentence was not a question but a repudiating 
exclamation requiring no answer. Obviously there is no evidence 
here for a meaning “why not?” unless, indeed, it can be shown 
that the force which quin actually possessed when it became a 
conjunction was necessarily derived from such a meaning. 

I follow Kienitz in postulating a single origin for quin-clauses. 
This can of course be proved only by tracing the several types 
from the common source; and this can be done only after that 
origin has been established. But the fact that quin occurs only 
after negative principal sentences is very much in favor of the 
theory of the single origin. 

In such a construction as licet eat we say that the complex is 
an expression of permission, consent, etc., and that it is made up 
of a subjunctive itself expressing permission and a verb licet 
explicating that force of the subjunctive.’ Properly stated the 
usual explanation of the nulla causa est quin construction is that 
the quin-question implied that there was no reason against the 
action, and that nulla causa est explicated that implication. In 
deterreo ne conferant, deterreo was a prefixed sentence making 
explicit an implication of ne conferant.’ Now whatever may have 
come to be true later, it certainly was the case when such a para- 
taxis as deterreo ne conferant arose that the complex as a whole 
had the meaning of the subjunctive clause. So in the case of our 
quin-construction we may feel confident that we are on the way 
to an explanation if we can point out a type of quin-sentence in 
which the complex has a meaning proper to the subjunctive and 


1P, 139. 2p, 159. 
8Compare Morris Principles and Methods, pp. 132 ff. 
4QOompare Hale-Buck Grammar 603. 3. ὃ. 1. 


THE ORIGIN OF Quin-CLAUSES 419 


in which the subordinate clause if made independent would have 
such an implication as is expressed by the principal clause. Our 
confidence will be strengthened if we can show that the other 
types of quin-sentence may be derived through extension to other 
persons, to other tenses, or in other ways. 

Of the one hundred and sixty examples of quin-sentences in 
Plautus and Terence, sixty-six, or 44 per cent. have first person 
in the quin-clause and the sentences as wholes relate to the act of 
the person speaking. With no sure exception in the first person, 
only two in the second, and seven in the third, all the sentences 
relate to an act not yet performed. Of the examples with the 
first person two-thirds may fairly be said to relate to an act willed 
by the speaker. As will be shown later all the explicatory sen- 
tences are easily derivable from an expression of denied hindrance. 
The following sentences, then, may be taken as fairly exemplify- 
ing one-fourth the entire number of examples. They represent, 
I believe, the original type of quin-clause. 


Men. 1124. Signa adgnovi: contineri, quin complectar, non queo. 
Amph. 559. Tamen quin loquar haec, uti facta sunt hic, 
Numquam ullo modo me potes deterrere. 
Men. 253. Verum tamen nequeo contineri quin loquar. 
Audin, Menaechme? 
Amph.1061. Neque me Juppiter neque di omnes id prohibebunt si 


volent, 
Quin sic faciam uti constitui: pergam in aedis nunciam. 
Miles 1250. Durare nequeo 
Quin eam intro // Occlusae sunt foris // Exfringam. 


Haut. 762. Hercle non possum pati, 
Quin tibi caput demulceam: accede huc, Syre: 
Faciam boni tibi aliquid pro ista re, ac lubens. 
Trin. 105. Non enim possum quin exclamem: euge . 
Men. 5618. Numquam edepol quisquam me exorabit, quin ‘tuae 
Uxori rem omnem ian, ut sit gesta, eloquar. 
Rud. 758. Quid causaest quin virgis te usque ad saturitatem sau- 
ciem? 
Quid illas spectas? quas si attigeris, oculos eripiam 
tibi. 
Mil. 332. | Me homo nemo deterrebit quin ea sit in his aedibus. 
Hic obsistam, ne imprudenti huc ea se subrepsit mihi. 


420 FrRaNK HaMILTON FOWLER 


Stich. 302. Non enim possum quin revortar, quin loquar, quin edis- 
sertem 
Eramque ex maerore eximam, bene facta maiorum meum 
Exaugeam atque illam augeam insperato opportuno 
bono. 
Contundam facta Talthubi contemnamque omnis nun- 
tios: | 

The obvious meaning of these examples, especially if they are 
considered in connection with their context, is one of will on the 
part of the speaker concerning his own action; and the obvious 
explanation of the origin of such a type is the existence of a sen- 
tence expressing so much of determination and consequent cer- 
tainty that the possibility’ of hindrance is rejected and the rejec- 
tion of such a possibility is made explicit by such an addition as 
nemo deterrebit or nequeo continerr. 

The volitive force of these sentences is sometimes indicated 
specifically. Of the passages quoted above, Men. 253 has an 
accompanying imperative question; but a clearer indication is to 
be seen in the accompanying expression of resolve in Mil. 332, 
Amph. 1051, Mil. 1250, and Stichus 302.’ In the following, with 
the third person to be sure, the volitive force of the quin-clause 
is indicated by the parallel ut ne clause. 

Trin. 105. Est atque non est mihi in manu, Megaronides: 

Quin dicant, non est: merito ut ne dicant, id est. 

The illustration of our construction in a paratactic stage is of 
course impossible. However, the following passages are of interest 
since they show the collocation of an expression of will with one 
of negative hindrance. The last two are of greatest value since 
they have first person. 

Mil. 1125.  Istuc cave faxis. quin potius per gratiam 

Bonam abeat abs te: 

Amph. 972. I sane et quantum potes parata fac sint omnia. 

// Quin venis quando vis intro? faxo haud quicquam sit 
morae. 


1A large number of the cases of negative hindrance have some form of possum 
and the verb of hindering in the infinitive; but the possibility of hindrance may be 
denied as well by numquam deterrebor as by nequeo contineri. 

2It is worth while to note that we may place a full stop after eximam and consider 
exaugeam and augeam independent subjunctives of resolve. See below. 


THE ORIGIN OF Qurw-CLAUSES 421 


Truc. 230.1 Numquam amatoris meretricem oportet causam noscere: 
Quin ubi nil det, pro infrequente eum mittat militia 
domum. 
Merc. 644. Non possum durare: certumst exulatum hinc ire me. 
Men. 826. Iam ergo haec madebunt faxo: nil morabitur. 


Our theory that the quin-sentence originally expressed the will 
of the speaker relative to his own act necessitates the supposition 
that the subjunctive in first person singular was at one time used 
with volitive force.’ That the most common method of expressing 
the will of the speaker relative to his own act was in Latin of 
historical times as in Greek by the use of the future indicative, is 
well known; that this could be expressed by the present indicative 
is also true; but that the subjunctive was at one time in use with 
this force we should conjecture from its common use to express 
the will of the speaker relative to the act of another. This con- 
jecture we find confirmed by the examples, though admittedly few, 
of the first person subjunctive with this force. The number of 
examples is, of course, greatly decreased by the ambiguity of the 
first person singular of the third and fourth conjugations. The 
following passages are quoted:’ 

Trin. 1136. Sed maneam etiam, opinor. 

Phor. 140. Αα precatorem adeam credo. 

Asin. 605. Sermoni iam finem face tuo: huius sermonem accipiam. 

Bacch. 1058. Ecfertur praeda ex Troia. taceam nunciam. 

Most. 849. Ibo intro igitur. // Mane sis videam, ne canis— 

Persa 542. Videam modo 

Mercimonium. 
Trin. 758. Dum occasio ei rei reperiatur, interim 

Ab amico alicunde mutuom argentum rogem. 
Haut. 273. | Mane: hoc quod coepi primum enarrem, Clitipho: 


Compare further Truc. 692, Asin. 816, 610, Cas. 516, 
Curc. 160, Rudens 570, and other cases which may have future 


1This has been explained as declarative, as interrogative, and as dependent. 

2See Delbruck Conj. und Onpt., pp. 11 ff.; Vergleichende Syntax II, Ὁ. 384; Rie- 
mann Syntaxe Lat., Ὁ. 260; Hale Antic. Subj., p. 14; Bennett Critique, Ὁ. 25; Durham 
Substantive Clauses, p. 83; Morris Prin. and Meth., p. 136. Elmer Studies, p. 217, 
is certainly wrong in explaining as subjunctives of obligation the cases commonly 
explained as volitive. It may well be that the cases with credo and opinor do not show 
a clear volitive force and yet be volitive in origin. 


8In regard to Miles 426: Quin rogem? see above, p. 417. 


422 FranK HAMILTON FOWLER 


indicative. I would add the following as showing the extension 
of the use to the past: . 


Stichus 576. Nequid adveniens perderem. 


The force of such a subjunctive may be made more explicit by 
the addition of such expressions as certumst, and so we have: 


Poen. 501. Profestos festos habeam: decretumst mihi. 


In the following the form is ambiguous but Morris’ and Durham’ 
consider it subjunctive notwithstanding Merc. 472: certumst ibo 
atque dabo; Asin. 248, Amph. 1048, Cas. 448, Bacch. 382, 
Aul. 681, Capt. 778. With such expressions as those just cited, 
which are possibly paratactic, Durham connects such substantive 
clauses as— 

Amph. 762. ita animatus fui 

Itaque nunc sum ut ea te patera donem. 
Compare further Asin. 505, Pseud. 549, Aul. 383, 371, Cure. 
218, Men. 1058. 

In regard to the conjunction quin it need hardly be said that 
the meaning which we have found attached to the particle in all 
its other uses is one that exactly fits it to show the relation between 
a loquar, “I shall speak,” and the added explication, nequeo 
continert, “1 can’t be stopped.” Nequeo continert: quin loquar 
originally meant, ‘‘I can’t be stopped: nay, I will speak.” 

An objection to the theory of the interrogative origin of the 
quin-clauses is that quin is not found with the subjunctive in 
questions (see p. 417). That quin is not found commonly with 
the subjunctive of resolve does not militate against the theory 
now proposed. As we have just seen, that subjunctive was itself 
rare in Plautus’ time; the one example which I claim above (Mil. 
426: quin rogem) is as much as we should expect. And quin was 
used with other expressions of resolve, e. g., Mil. 1124, quoted 
above. 

In what follows I shall not attempt to trace the development of 
the quin-construction in detail. My object is simply to show, as 
an argument in support of the theory advanced in this paper, that 


14.J. P. XVIII, p. 145, and Prin. and Meth., p. 136. 
2Subst. Clauses, p. 84. 


THE ORIGIN OF Quin-CLAUSES 423 


the several types of quin-clause which we find in Plautus and 
Terence are only those which we might expect to find if we assume 
as the original type that illustrated by nequeo contineri quin loquar. 
This sentence is a complex, as a complex in first person, with 
volitive modal force, with future temporal force, and with a, gram- 
matically speaking, principal clause expressing negative hindrance. 
Any one of these elements may show shifting, but the modal force 
not commonly, except when accompanied by shifting of some other 
element. It is to be noted, too, that in our typical sentence the 
loquar expresses in effect that which does not follow as a result 
of the nequeo continert. This relation of virtual negative result 
may become more prominent in the developed clause. 

The extension to the past is not common. For the first person 
the references are as follows: Mil. 370, Asin. 675, Eun. 1048, 
Bacch. 1012, Amph. 1054, Adel. 222. Of these Mil. 370: 
Numquam hercle deterrebor Quin viderim τὰ quod viderim is only 
a formal extension. As Brix notes, the expression is short for 
vidisse me dicam. In Asin. 675 the time of the quin-verb is really 
future, and the imperfect is due to the imperfect subjunctive of 
mental certainty upon which the quin-clause depends. Only in 
Adelphoe 222 do we have both verbs in a past tense. The occur- 
rences in the second person are Hun. 180 and Haut. 1007; those 
in third are Hun. 842, Trin. 534, Cist. 18, Hun. 1092, Curc. 228, 
and Miles 263. It may be worth while to note that of these 
fourteen cases six are from Terence, the later writer. Of more 
interest is it to note that most of these extensions have taken place 
only when the explicatory sentence had gone some distance from 
the starting-point. Most of the cases are like 


Haut. 1007. nullamne ego rem umquam in vita mea 
volui quin tu in ea re mi fueris advorsatrix, Sostrata? 


But in the following we have a true extension to past tense and to 
third person without other shift. 


Curc. 228. Tormento non retineri potuit ferreo, 
Quin reciperet se huc esum ad praesepem suam. 


Similarly, Mil. 263. 


424 Frank HamIttTon FowLer 


The number of cases of quin-clause with the third person is 
the same as of those with the first." In the following the modal 
feeling is volitive. 

Merc. 1021. Neu quisquam posthac prohibeto adulescentem filium 

Quin amet et scortum ducat, quod bono fiat modo. 
Adel.170. Cave nunciam oculos a meis oculis quoquam demoveas 
tuos 
Ne mora sit, si innuerim, quin pugnus continuo in 
mala haereat. 


But such an example as the following expresses consent. 
Phor. 272. Non causam dico quin quod meritus sit ferat. 


Of quin-clauses with the second person there are but twenty-two 
cases. The modal feeling is usually shifted. In the following it 
is consent. 


Curc. 34. Nemo hinc prohibet nec vetat 
Quin quod palamst venale, si argentumst, emas. 
Asin. 355. argentum non morabor quin feras. 


We may expect the quin-clause to be extended to use with other 
less direct expressions of negative hindrance; and this shifting we 
may expect to find accompanied by a shifting of modal force and 
by a change in the relation existing between the two clauses. The 
use of non sinam quin “I shall not permit a hindrance,” non 
patiar, nequeo durare quin, “I cannot hinder myself,” scarcely 
call for notice. See example quoted above, p. 419. These ex- 
pressions do not occur except in first person. And there is no 
more difficulty with non possum and nequeo quin, though the 
feeling here may be weakened from the true volitive. See Trin. 
705, quoted above. 

Since the nulla causa est quin construction* has been thought 
by some to furnish the starting-point for all quin-constructions, 
and by others to be at least independent in its origin, it calls for 
more attention. There are really three types of these construc- 
tions, the nulla causa est quin with five examples in Plautus and 


1Such an example as the following, while having the verb in the third person is 
practically first person: 

Miles 332. Me homo nemo deterrebit quin ea sit in his aedibus. 

2Mr. Tenney Frank’s article dealing with these sentences appeared in the January 
number of this Journal after my paper was in the hands of the editor. 


THE ORIGIN OF Quin-CLAUSES 425 


Terence, the nullam causam dico quin with four examples, and the 
quae causa est quin with seven examples. One example, Amph. 
852, belongs in both of the last two classes. In such an example as 


Cas. 1008. Nulla causa est quin pendentem me, uxor, virgis verberes. 


the existence of a hindering reason to another’s action is denied 
and modal feeling becomes one of consent. As regards the modal 
feeling the same is true of 
Aul. 755. Ergo quia sum tangere ausus, haud causificor, quin eam 
Ego habeam potissimum. 
The speaker denies that he will offer a pretext that will stand in 
the way of the act consented to.' With more of the original feel- 
ing of resolve are such cases as Rudens 758, quoted above. Here 
the speaker challenges—and so virtually denies—the existence of 
a hindering reason for the action resolved upon. How close the 
nulla causa construction is to that after an expression of negative 
hindrance is shown by such an example as 
Hec. 588. Ne mea praesentia obstet neu causa ulla restet relicua, 
Quin tua Philumena ad te redeat. 
The few cases of non facio quin are close to the nulla causa est 
quin construction. The close relation between the nequeo durare 
and the non faciam type and through that with the nulla causa 
type is shown by 
Amph. 889. Non edepol faciam neque me perpetiar probri 
Falso insimulatam, quin ego illum aut deseram 
Aut satis faciat mihi ille atque adiuret insuper 
Nolle esse dicta quae in me insontem protulit. 
In place of denying the existence of a hindrance in general we 
may have the denial of a specific hindrance. 
Cas. 604. Tribus non conduci possum libertatibus 
Quin ego illis hodie comparem magnum malum 
Quinque hanc omnem rem meae erae iam faciam palam. 
Men. 518. Numquam edepol quisquam me exorabit, quin tuae 
Uxori rem omnem iam, ut sit gesta, eloquar. 


Most. 146. non videor mihi 
Sarcire posse aedes meas, quin totae perpetuae ruant 


'Cf, Elmer’s note to Phor. 272 “following the idea of preventing implied in non 
causam dico,”’ 


426 Frank HamItton FowLer 


The first and second examples are clearly volitive in force. In the 
last with the third person the consecutive relation becomes more 
prominent. 

The degree of a quality may be made the specific hindering 
reason denied. 


Capt. 408. Numquam erit tam avarus, quin te gratus emittat manu. 
Haut. 675. Nil tam difficilest quin quaerendo investigari possiet. 


And here, too, the consecutive force is prominent.’ 
It is only a step from such a case as that just quoted or 
Haut. 806. Nullast tam facilis res, quin difficilis siet, 
Quam invitus facias 
to such a one as 
Stich. 208. Nam curiosus nemost quin sit malevolus—: 
and from this only a step to such a one as 


Phor. 697. Nil est, Antipho, 
Quin male narrando possit depravarier. 
Brugmann J. Κ΄. IV. 226, thought it impossible than an adverbial 
clause should pass over into an adjectival clause and so separated 
these quin-clauses from others. But, as already indicated by the 
examples quoted from Heauton and Stichus, these were not felt as 
adjectival clauses. More conclusive evidence is furnished by the 
passage quoted above from Haut. 1007 in which the demonstrative 
in ea re shows that quin was not felt as a relative pronoun. The 
same kind of evidence is furnished by the following examples: 
Trin. 6384. Neque umquam quisquamst quoius ille ager fuit, 
Quin pessume ei res vorterit. 


Nepos xviii. 2.5. Non cum quoquam arma contuli quin is mihi suc- 
cubuerit. 


In no case, however, is it to be admitted that we have a true result 
clause. Quin never became grammatically equivalent to ut non. 
To say that nothing is so easy as to prevent its being difficult 
under given circumstances may be practically equivalent to saying 
that nothing is so easy that it is not difficult under given circum- 
stances; but grammatically the two expressions are not equivalent. 


1Cf. Bennett Appendiz, 376. 


THE ORIGIN OF Quin-CLAUSES 427 


Just as in the case of the true negative result clause the mean- 
ing is sometimes that which we may translate into English by 
‘“‘without” and the gerund or into German by ‘“‘ohne dass,”’ so in 
such cases as the following, 


Epid. 437. Cave praeterbitas ullas aedis, quin roges. 
With the nemo est quin construction should be compared, e. g., 
Adel. 294. nam numquam unum intermittit diem 
quin semper veniat. 
With nil tam est quin compare 


Haut.68. Numquam tam mane egredior neque tam vesperi 
domum revortor quin te in fundo conspicer 
fodere aut arare aut aliquid ferre. 


It is worth while to note that there are only nine cases of the 
non dubium quin construction in Terence and only three in Plautus. 
These three have quid dubitas? The construction was somewhat 
figurative and grew up later than the others. The explanation of 
the construction lies in the fact that dubswm means ‘hindrance to 
thought.” | 


And.172. Non dubiumst, quin uxorem nolit filius. 
LOMBARD COLLEGE 


1Compare Mil. 382 quoted above, p. 419. With other meanings of dubium and 
dubito the use of quin is rare and comparatively late. 


KARANIS ACCOUNTS 
By Epaak J. GoopsPEED 


The papyrus of accounts that follows is one (No. 99) of a 
number that came into my possession in 1898. It preserves 
eleven columns of accounts, apparently of the superintendent of 
an estate. The entries run through several months, Athur, 
Choiak, Tybi and Mecheir being mentioned on the recto. The 
roll is in good condition and measures cm. 21 X88. The papyrus 
probably belongs, like the larger roll with which it was secured, 
to the latter part of the second century. It is written in a fine, 
rapid Roman cursive, the recto preserving seven columns and the 
verso four. The accounts contain a number of new words and 
exhibit several points of interest. 

Frequent references to well-known towns of the Fayfim: He- 
phaestias (ii. 1; iv. 1), Kerkesoucha (iv. 34), Memphis (vi. 6, 7; 
vii. 17, 21, 29); Arsinoe (iii. 23; vi. 9,11; vii. 23), Philadelphia 
(vii. 22), Hiera (v. 1; xi. 15,17), confirm the reputed provenance 
of the papyrus, which came into my hands along with a mass of 
second-century documents from Karanis.' There are also allusions 
to Bacchias (ii. 20, 22), and Athribis (iv. 6). I am indebted to 
Drs. Grenfell and Hunt for helpful suggestions upon many points 
of difficulty in the papyrus. 

Recto: Column I is very fragmentary. 


COLUMN II 
HeauoridBlos)  (xepalaéon)] τῷ 
και[.]. [ Ja 
KGa on 
5 τεταρτήχωρ[α ᾿ς 
- ply . ασιν [ le 


1**Papyri from Karanis,’’ The University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philol- 
ogy III, pp. 1-66 (1900); ‘‘Greek Papyri from the Oairo Museum,” The University of 
Chicago Decennial Publications, First Series, Vol. V, pp. 28-73 (1902); "" Greek Papy- 
rus Texts,’’ Classical Philology I (1906), pp. 167-75. 
[CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY ITI, October, 1908] 428 


KaRANIS ACCOUNTS 429 


ἡμικῷον a 
Κφοίν) a 
διπλ[ά]δια [1] 
10 _ παρὰ) βο[ι]κοῦ ῦ[] 
ὑ]πὲρ τοῦ Heropl 7 [ωοβ 
Ἰἄλλου ζος 
]..[... κς 
15 Ἰάλλο[ν ] εξ 
Ja B ὑλιστ[οῦ].. acts 
λόγος ἁλός __ 
Zalpariw[o]ls “a καδ. δον ~ ις 


‘H] φαιστιάδα θηλικαπηνεί ) mas ~~ a 

2020 Θιεείψι.] .[..].. Βακχί ) Ὡρίων = 
7.α ἀπῆν ἑλίν ““΄ B 

. [. Βακ͵χί ) ef. J -β 


Σερήνῳ (ἐκατοντάρχφ).. Ὕ 
Θ]ιεψι Ovpo .. [. . «Ἶστια B 
16 Or . λεις. 


23 Pap. Lepnvw p. 
24 θυροκρονστία ? 
COLUMN ΠῚ 


-[-]. μα ἀναλογὴ ᾿Αμυνταίον δι(ὰ) 

Π]εκμή[τος ᾿Α[θ]ὺρ uc ἐμισθί ) δι(ὰ) Σαραπίω(νο:) 
.« Aov.. κοτῷ(ύλαι) 

ταιδ(ώι) ιβ σ.... 

δ dpu(olws) « ὁμί(οίως) .. 
ὁμ(οίως) to ὁμ(οίως) .. 
Su(otws) ὃ ὁμί(οίω:) y 
μ[κροῦ κτήματ() 6 
παιδ(ίοι) ὃ σφυρί) ¢ 

10 .[.] προαναλλελεγμέναι 
w](apa) Σαραπίωνο(ς) σφυρίδες ς 
πάντα ἐνεκλείσθη ἰς τὸ 
᾿Αμυνταίου ἰς ταμεῖον 
.[.. τα] μεεῖον 

| ....... Ju μικροῦ κτήματί(ος) 


10 Or προ(σ)αναλλελεγμέναι 


480 EpGAk J. GOODSPEED 


veces Ἰπαιδ(ώις) δ σφυρ(ίδες) γ 

ΝΠ eeee Jov εν On.avr( ) διὰ Πεκμήιτ(ος) 
wal] Κάστορον κ καὶ ἐξέβησ- 

ἂν μετρηταὶ Ὑ 

20 κερμί ) δι(ὰ)ὴ Πεκμήιτος 

παιδίς ἀνάλεκτ(α) GK 

ἐξέβησαν ἄλλων ~~ xy "ΜΝ 
... κτήματ(ος) ᾿Αρσι(νοιτῶν πόλιν) . w 


COLUMN IV 


Ἡφαιστιάδ (os) σιτώματ(α) π.( ) 
προενήνοχεν “" ς 

καὶ 8? ἐμοῦ κὃ — © 

ὁμ(οίως) 7 6 


ὃ κατασπασμοῦ du(oiws) παρεδόθη 


Σύρῳ ᾿Αθρειβείτ(ῃ) ἐγλεκτ(α) “ κιᾧ 
καὶ ἐνεκλείσθ(η χνυσταιας “pe ΝΕ 
καὶ προαπόκειταια ἐκεῖ σιτώματί(ο) ~~ § 
ἠνέχθη 
10 xe ἐργάτ(αις) ἡ παιδ(ίοι:) ἡ ἐγλεκ(τα) “ η ~ y 
xn ὁμ(οίως) 7 6p. (otws) t ne 
xO ὁμ(οίω) ς dplolws) ς Ν Ἢ = βι 
Dd ὁμί(οίω) ς ὁμί(οίω) « © fu ΠΠ y¥ 
TOB(t) a ὁμί(οίως) η ὁμί(οίω) § By ~*~ fiz 
1] ΝΗ . ΤΠ Bb τ β 
B Gploiws) ς ὁμίοίω) γ 5 aw “Πα 
Ὕ ὁμ(οίω) . ὁμ(οίω:) y ~ yie = ὃς 
“δ ὁμ(οίως) [ Ἰόμ(οίως) Ὕ π᾿ ε΄ a 
20 “ tB 
'ε« ὁμ(οίως) [ὃ Ἰόμ(οίως) δ π᾿ α 
᾿ς ὁμί(οίως) [ Ἰόμ(οίω) ε “ av’ 
CU ὁμ(οίω) (. ὁμ(οίω) « “ ay 


6 ἐγλεκταί cf. Fayam Towns, 102, 3. ᾿Αθρειβείτῃ is of interest, as mentions of 
Athribis are very rare in Roman papyri; cf. Tebtunis Papyri, II, p. 365. 


25 


30 


10 


15 


KARANIS AOOOUNTS 431 


θ ὁμ(οίως) β ὁμ(οίω) 8  ς 

t dp(oiws) ς ὁμί(οίως) η dpu(olws) a 
_ 6p. (olws 

ta 6p(otws) Ύ ὁμ(οίως) β ὁμ(οίως) α.. 

ιβ dp(oiws) ιη ὁμί(οίως) € “ey 

ty du(otws) y — 8B 


ddeoupy(ias) καὶ ἐξέβη μετρητ(ὴ) .'2 [ 
vavraiov λέπτα £12 ~~ 

μισθὸς ἐργάτ(αις) καὶ dv(as) ὑπάγουσι 
ἐπὶ ἅλα εἰς Κερκεσοῦχα [ 


COLUMN V 
Ἱερᾶς προσανελέγη ὑπὸ Πεκμήιτί(ος) 
παιδα.( ).a ἐλεῶν ““ ιθ καὶ ἅπαντί ) erpov παιδί )εαρ..ε 
Αὐλαίου] καὶ ὑπο Σαλουτ(άριος 3) γ ἐλεουργήθη δι(ὰ) S[ad Jour (dptos 3) 
καὶ ἐξέβη ἐλαίου μετρητ(ὴς) αὐ΄ a IZ ὕστερον 
σιτωματί ) Αὐλαῶών L “ β 
ῥοδοφόρου τεταριχευ(μένου) εἰς λέπτια ἡ Oe 
καὶ τῷ ἑτέρῳ λεπτώ----- 
τόπου Στομομεντλα is λέπτιι ἡ " nt 
.ἰς τὸ Apa τὸ βὶ ὁ 
τίῇ τ]οῦ Αὐλαίον ἐν λεπτίος ¢ 
ἀπ’ αὐτῆς λέπτια ΤῈ 
Ady[os olivov διασταλέντος ὑπὸ Ζήνα 
τῶν [ἀ]γορασμένων χωρὶς πρατικῶν 
Gep[..... ] οἴνου κεράμια ν ἐκ Gof (ω[κε 


ἄλλων κεραμίων π ἐκ (  . ζάτο[γ-Ξ 
γί(νοντα) 5 .. ¢ ai καὶ μεταβληθεῖσαι Ζήνᾳ 
Νήσου ὁμοίως κεράμια μ ἐκ Sec [ CxéB χ(αλκοῦς 


ἄλλω[ν] κεραμίων wm ἐκ GL = Sur 
γί(νονται) SdpuB χί(αλκοῦς) a αἱ καὶ μετα βληθεῖσαι Ζήνᾳ 


τὰ λοιπὰ [[x Cl] ἐκ GL 3] SB χί(αλκοῦς) a 
. γί(νεται) ἐπὶ τ(ὸ αὐτὸ), .. υ[. . .] L ἀναλώσῃ 
[-.]. ησαν τῶν dw τέλους κατί() ov... μί ) (μὲς 


1 Ἱερά, cf. Tebtunis Papyri, II, No. 366, 8, etc. 
20 1. © before ἐκ 


432 EpGak J. GOODSPEED 


COLUMN VI 
ἐξωδιασμοὺς ἑλάις 


Σερήν(φ) . .[1.. ¢ Σανενει κί . ]v Σεουήρῳ 


Ἡλισί...}. ἃ 
αναλί. 1 a 
δ [lax]}ra[.]. - ὃ ΝΕ 
is MeCw> φιν[. .].[.] καὶ ἄλλα β - 
ὁμ(οίως) is Μέμφιν ]α B awrA( ) 7 


Θιεψε μεί.. .]ν a ° _ 
is ᾿Αρσινοει[τ(ῶν πολιν)]. [... .w σπε δΙ]!λαί. .)}. δίχω(ρα) β΄ a 
10 τεταρί[χ]ευτίαι ) dix(wpa) A ..[..-]Je ΝΕ 
ὧν ary. is ‘Apowour (av πόλιν) τη. τοῦ Mex(ip) dix(wpa) ε 
βαδιστηλάτῃ κεράμιον α "ΝΕ 
καὶ τῷ Φαρ[ pod} ὅτε ὁ ἐπιστρατ(η) γὸς εἰσήρχετί(ο) Six(wpa) ι 
Adyos [ἐ]λεουργίον 
1 ε᾽Ασ[ζκ]λι ς 
ue νεοφύτ(ων) > 6 
ιξ bploiws) “ ¢ 
tn ὁμ(οίω) ~~" 
ειθ ὁμ(οίως) [..].. 
κ νεΐο] φύτ(ων). “ ἡ 
᾿Ασκλία Jj] ~~  ε 


ΟΞ τ[Π|κ{..1 τ ε 
κα .Ϊ eee ] ς 
25 kB ..[....] τς 
ny [..... ᾽πε 
wo .[--.] τ ¢ 
πρ....... J 
α....{.) 
80 Ky [. eee eee eee }~ 


16 Cf. FayQm Towns, No. 102, introduction. 


COLUMN VII 
ἐξωδιασμὸς ἀπὸ ἐλεουργίου εἰς τὴν πόλ(ιν) 
δι(ὰ) τοῦ ὀνηλάτου μετρητοῦ ἥμισν καὶ δι(ὰ) 


᾿Ατρ[ἢ]τος ὁμ(οίως) [le] μετρητοῦ ἥμισυ ὁμ(οίως) Χοίακ ὁμ(οίως). [ 
ὧδε ὄντι κοτύλ (αι) 812 ἀκταρί(ο)ν perpyr(at). | 


10 


15 


30 


ΚΑΒΑΝῚΒ ACCOUNTS ᾿ς 488 


καὶ τί) τη ἀπὸ ἐλεουργ(ίου) Κιαλμινσησι perpyr(al) Ὑ 
καὶ τῷ κυρτῷ μετρητ(ὴς) a |Z καὶ Τίτῳ κοτ(ύλαι) Ὕ 
παράλημψις ἐλαίου ἐξ ἐλεουργίον Κιαλμινσησι 

᾿Αϑὸρ πῇ μετρηταὶ πα ὁμ(οίω) βεταστηλί ).« 
Χοίακ perpyr(ai) β ΙΖ. καὶ τῇ tm . ἀπὸ ἐλεουργεί[ον 
petpyt (ys) a \~ καὶ πλύματ(α) ει 


λόγος Κῳων 

ἀκμαίων ἡμικῷα ος 

διπλάδια λζ 

Κῴα Nx 

παλαιῶν ὁμ(οίωτ) Kgal-}y 

διπλάδιον [1] 

παρουσίας Γεμέλλο[υ . .. .]τί. ) (ἑκατοντάρχου) ὅτε εἰς Μέμφιν 


ὑπήγα[γε ἡμ)ικῷον ἰ.. ΓΞ Mex(dp) wc εἰ. J []. 
Κφί[α)] αἱδ[ρ]αῖα [... .] 

λόγος ἀξε[ε]δίων ὄντων ἐν τῇ [ἀτ]οθήκῃ 

ὅτε εἰς Μέμφιν ὑπήγαγε κεράμιον αὖ 

εἰς Φιλαδελφίαν κεράμιον a 

is ᾿Αρσινοειτ(ῶν πόλιν) y ὑλιστοῦ α 

διὰ Πρώτα α 

διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ α 

ὁμ(οίως) μονόχωρον ΝΕ 

Ζήνᾳ . σινα.] is τελών(ην) a 

Παμοῦνι αρ.. pw a 

is Μέμφιν Ne[x]wre α 

ὁλι[στ]οὗ [κεϊράμια [Te μακρὰ “τ΄ ἄζον dy (oles) “α΄ 


8 Read βαδιστηλάτῃ! Cf. vi. 12. 
11 On Kgo» cf. Fayam Towns, Ostr. 44:3; B. G. U. 531: 11:8; Wilcken, 


Ostraka I, p. 766. 


Verso: Columns VIII-X are fragmentary. 


COLUMN XI 
ἐξ]ωδιασμὸς λεπτίων 
] 


κ]εραμ(ών) λέπτια ις 
καὶ ἄλλα ἢ 
ὁμ(οίως) ἄλλα ἢ 


434 


10 


15 


EDGAR J. GOODSPEED 


ὁμ(οίως) dAA(a) ὃ 

ὁμ(οίως) ἄλλ() κη 

καὶ τὰ προαποκείμ(ενα) ἐκεῖ aw... ρυσιλί ) ιζ 
καὶ ἄλλα 

- emt... awro λέπτια Gy 

τεταρίχενται λέπτια wy 

ope €..t..aev ὑπὸ καμηλείτ(ου) 

προς ....... τοῦ βαλανείν ὦ 

δι(ὰ) ΣΞαραπίωνος καὶ ἀποκε[((μενα) .. .] ἐν 
Ἱερᾷ τὰ λοπὰθ[ =] 

ἐδόθη Σύρῳ λέπτια ο 

λοιπὰ ἐν Ἱερᾷ λαίτα Γ΄ 

τοῖς τοῦ Σερήν(ου) χρῆσις λέπτια ΓᾺ 


Σύρῳ λέπτια θ 
ὁμ(οίως) ἄλλα ις 
μεθ’ ἃ ἔσχεν ἄλλας 
. καὶ ἄλλα τς 


καὶ dx’ ἐμοῦ χρῆσις ε 
ἐν τῷ βαλανείῳ σὺν λακήμασι Aero 
The rest of the verso is blank. 


Tue UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


NOTES ON GREEK ETYMOLOGY 
By Εἰ. H. Srurrsvanr 
κτύπος 

A connection between κτύπος and Lat. supo, dissipo, etc., has 
recently been suggested by R. Trautmann, in Walde’s Lateini- 
sches etymologisches Worterbuch, p. 714. The etymology of 
course requires the assumption that the primary meaning of 
κτύπος was “blow” rather than ‘“‘noise.”' While the semantic 
development, ‘‘blow’’) “ringing blow”) “ring,” is particularly 
easy, the evidence points toward the other alternative. 

The meanings of κτύπος and the related words may be grouped 
as follows: (1) As illustrations of the simple meaning “noise” 
may be cited κτύπος θεῶν (i.e., thunder) 17]. xx. 66, αὐτὸς δ᾽ ἐξ 
Ἴδης μεγάλ᾽ ἔκτυπε “he (Zeus) thundered” J1. viii. 75, and βαρύ- 
κτυπος “loud-thundering” H. Hom. Cer. 3, Hes. Theog. 388, etc. 
(2) The prevailing force at all periods is “noise caused by a 
blow.” Typical examples of this are: θύρας ἄκουσον épxelas κτύ- 
mov “hear the knocking at your outer door” Aesch. Cho. 653, 
ταὶ δὲ μεγάλα κτυπέουσαι πῖπτον “and they (trees) fell with a 
loud crash” 11]. xxiii. 119, χθόνα δ᾽ ἔκτυπον ὠκέες ἵπποι νύσσοντες 
χηλῇσι “made the ground ring with their hoof-beats’’ Hes. 
Shield 61. (8) In the following words the idea of sound is 
either unimportant or totally absent: μυδροκτύπος “forging red- 
hot iron” Eur. H. 1. 992, μυδροκτυπέω Aesch. Pr. 366, σφυρό- 
κτύπος “wrought with the hammer” Theod. Prodr.,’? σφυροκτυπόω 
‘‘forge” Schol. Ap. Rh.,* ἡλεόκτυπος “sun-burnt” (Wellauer’s con- 
jecture) Aesch. Supp. 155, χειρόκτυπος “stricken by the hand” 
Telest. i. 6, χιονόκτυπος “snow-beaten” of a mountain Soph. 47. 
695. νιφόκτυπος Castorian in Ath. 455 A and ὀμβρόκτυπος Aesch. 
Ag. 656 clearly mean “snow-beaten”’ and “rain-beaten” respec- 
tively, although Liddell and Scott translate “rattling with snow 
or sleet” and “sounding with rain.” 

1Prellwitz Et. Worterbuch der gr. Sprache, 8. v., makes the same assumption. 


3. Cited in the Thesaurus and Liddell and Scott. 
(CLassroaL ParLo.oey III, October, 1908) 435 


436 E. H. Sturtevant 


It will be noticed that the third meaning is confined to com- 
pounds, and that it does not occur before Aeschylus. We should 
therefore consider it the latest rather than the earliest force of 
κτύπος. The following compounds represent the transition stage 
between meanings (2) and (3), the idea of a blow is relatively 
prominent, but the idea of noise has not faded out: κυμόκτυπος 
‘‘wave-resounding,” λυροκτύπος “twanging the lyre,’ ὁπλόκτυπος 
“hoof-resounding,” στερνοκτύπος “plangens,” στερνοκτυπία “planc- 
tus.” 

We may identify κτύπος, ἔκτυπον, etc., with Lith. sziktt' “to 
ery out.” The same root appears in Goth. swégnjan “to rejoice, 
triumph,” ga-swogjan ‘“‘to sigh,” OE. and OS. swégan “rustle, 
resound,” Icel. arn-sigr “186 rushing sound of an eagle’s wings.’ 
Skt. ksauts “he sneezes” may be ultimately related. 


COMPOUNDS IN -κόπος 


The Greek compounds ending in -κόπος fall into three classes 
which have been assigned by one scholar or another to as many 
separate roots. The words of the first class exhibit several of 
the meanings of the verb κόπτω, and are undoubtedly to be 
grouped with it. The following are typical examples: oprvyoxd- 
πος “striking quails, playing the game of quail-striking,”’ σφυρο- 
κόπος ‘“‘one who beats with the hammer,’’ ξυλοκόπος “hewing, 
felling wood,” λιθοκόπος “stone-cutter,” σιδηροκόπος “forging 
iron,” ἀργυροκόπος “coiner, silversmith,” θυροκόπος “knocking at 
the door, begging,” βωλοκόπος “clod-breaking,” δρνοκόπος ‘‘ wood- 
pecker.” 

By far the most familiar word of the second class is ἀρτοκότπος 
‘“‘bread-baker, baker.” ὀλυροκόπος “adoris pistor” occurs in a 
recently discovered Alexandrian inscription of the time of 
Ptolemy IV, which was published by Botti in the Bulletin de la 
Société Archéologique d’ Alexandrie, No. 4, p. 94, and reprinted 
by Wilamowitz-Moellendorff in the Sitzungsber d. Berl. Ak. d. 


1 Leskien ‘‘Schallnachahmungen und Schallverba im Litauischen,” 175. XIII. 179, 
is unable to quote an onomatopoetic interjection similar in form to this verb, although 
the *‘ punctive ’’ verb sziktereti does occur. There is no difficulty in the way of assum- 
ing that szuktt was inherited. 


Notes ON GREEK ETYMOLOGY 487 


Wiss., 1902, p. 1095. The derivatives, χονδροκοπεῖον,, Pollux - 
iii. 78, and χονδροκοπεῖα (MS. χονδροκόπια)" μύλων ὅπου ὁ yd» 
δρος κόπτεται, Hesych., point to a *yovdpoxdrros. Ammianus Mar- 
cellinus xv. 5. 4 speaks of a member of the court of Constantius 
II as “Eusebio . . . . cui cognomentum erat inditum Mattyo- 
copae.” The first element of this nickname is clearly ματτύη “ἃ 
rich, highly-flavored dish, made of hashed meat, poultry, and 
herbs.”” The second element also is undoubtedly Greek, but no 
parallel can be quoted for *Marrvoxdans. Herwerden Mélanges 
Nicole, p. 252, thinks that the correct reading in Ammianus is 
Mattyocoptae. There are a few compounds in -κόπτης in late 
Greek, as κατακόπτης, κεφαλοκόπτης, etc., but I think it at least 
equally probable that the original name was *Marrvoxdzros, and 
that Ammianus wrote Mattyocopi. The traditional reading is due 
to a confusion with Latin cépa, colloquial for caupona.’ 

Curtius’ connected ἀρτοκόπος with πέσσω, Skt. pdcati, etc., by 
assuming a metathesis such as is seen in σκέπτομαι beside Lat. 
specio. When it came to be understood that the final as well as 
the initial consonant of I-E. *pequ- should yield Greek π if fol- 
lowed by 0, the etymology could be rescued only by the assump- 
tion of some sort of assimilative or dissimilative process. Sug- 
gestions of this sort have been made by Brugmann, Schulze, and 
Sollmsen.*‘ | 

The more obvious connection of ἀρτοκόπος with κόπτω was 
preferred by Pott.’ According to this theory, -κόπος, like Lat. 
pistor, originally referred to the person who prepared the grain by 
pounding it with a stone or pestle. The verb κχόπτω sometimes 
means “crush or cut into bits,” e. g., κυπέρου κεκομμένου Her. iv. 
11, ἀσταφίδα κεκομμένην Alexis Lebes 127, 4 Koch. Compare 


1 Pauw conjectured this word as the lemma of one of Phrynichus’ articles. But 
see Rutherford’s discussion, The New Phrynichus, p. 865. 


?For the genitive instead of the dative in late Latin, see Kfihner II, p. 309, and 
Lane, 1214. If Ammianus had written the dative, Mattyocopo, of course the con- 
fusion would have been with the masculine copo, -onis. 

8Gr. Et.5 465. 

4Brugmann Grundriss 13, 878; Schulze Goétt. gel. Anz. (1897), pp. 907 f.; Sollmsen, 
Ueber Dissimilations- und Assimilationseracheinungen bei den aligriechischen Guttu- 
ralen 6 ff., and 11 f. 


5 Etymologische Forschungen 113, 781. 


488 KE. H. Sturtevant 


ελπτοκοπέω Diosc. v. 85, etc., and κόπανον “pestle.” A develop- 
ment of meaning similar to that of the compounds in question is 
seen in κοπτή and κοπτοπλακοῦς “cake of pounded sesame.” 

The only weakness I can see in the latter etymology is that the 
the word for “miller” should be, not ἀρτοκόπος, but " πυρο-κόπος, 
" ἀλευροκόπος, or the like. This is just what we have in ὀλυροκό- 
wos ‘“‘adoris pistor” and " χονδροκόπος “alicae pistor.” Although 
these words do not appear until late, they evidently represent an 
earlier type than ἀρτοκόπος, for the latter would hardly be pos- 
sible until -κόπος at the end of compounds had come to denote the 
pistor not only in his capacity as ‘“‘miller’’ but also as ‘‘baker.” 

In the third place, -κόπος sometimes means “courting.” The 
following list is substantially complete: δημοκόπος, δοξοκόπος, 
θεατροκόπος, ὀχλοκόπος, πολιτοκόπος, πορνοκόπος, πραγματοκόπος 
Philodemus De Rhet., ed. Sudh., p. 226. 7, σεμνοκόπος Philodemus 
De vit., ed. Saupp., pp. 29, 30 (according to Herwerden Lex. 
Suppl., p. 971), συμβολοκόπος, φαντασιοκόπος. 

At first glance these words seem hopelessly remote from all the 
meanings of κόπτω, and, as a matter of fact, they were referred to 
a different root by Pott loc. cit. The clew, however, is not far to 
seek. The earliest of them apparently is πορνοκόπος,; of which 
Phrynichus, p. 491 Rutherford, says: ““πορνοκόπος" οὕτω Mevav- 
δρος, οἱ δ᾽ ἀρχαῖοι πορνότριψ λέγουσιν. Probably the word had 
a history similar to that of its predecessor. Originally it meant 
“wearing out, wearying harlots,’”’ but it came to be understood as 
‘courting harlots.”’ The other words in the list were then formed 
on the model of πορνοκόπος. 


εέχω, ETO. 

Aside from the verb forms, ρεχέτω and ἔρεξε, in a Pamphylian’ 
and a Cyprian inscription’ respectively, it is well known that the 

1 πολιτοκοπέω is cited from Plato, the comic poet, by Phrynichus, Anecd. (Bekk.), 
p. 57, 1. 38, in the sense of λοιδορείν, κωμῳδεῖν. I cannot conceive, however, of a con- 
nection between this meaning and " demagogue’’ the meaning of the later πολιτοκόπος. 
Perhaps there was an earlier πολιτοκόπος meaning *‘ wearying, troubling the citizens or 
a citizen.’’ 

2It is possible that -κόπος in πορνοκόπος originally had an obscene sense like that 
of Latin caedo in Lucilius 283 Marx, and in Catullus lvi. 7, or that of Latin pertundo 
in Catullus xxxii. 11. Cf. μοιχοτύπη and χαμαιτύπη. 

8SGDI. 1267, 1. 24, and Hoffmann, GD. I, p. 46, ἢ. 66. 


ΝΟΤΕῈΒ ΟΝ GREEK ETYMOLOGY 439 


root of Latin veho is represented in Greek by ὄχος “vehiculum” 
and its derivaties ὀχέομαι “ride,” oyéw “cause to ride.” and ὄχημα 
‘“‘vehiculum.” That the Homeric epithet of Poseidon, ya:yjoxes, 
belongs here is shown by the form yata¢éyov on a Laconian inscrip- 
tion. To this list should be added ἔποχος “mounted upon” 
(Aeschylus, etc.), συνέποχος ‘‘traveling together” (Eust. Opusc. 
174.77 Tafel*?). συνεποχέομαι “to be mounted with” (Phot. Bibl. 
475. 22 Bekker’). ἔποχον “saddle-cloth” (Xen. Eg. xii. 9), 
mapoxos ---παράνυμφος (Ar. Av. 1740, etc.), + ἵππος = παρήορος 
(Evagr. H. £. vi, 4’). 

The doubtful word ἐχεπευκές occurs twice in the Iliad (i. 51, iv. 
129) in the phrase βέλος ἐχεπευκές. Its first element is usually 
referred to éyw; but the meter favors ρόχω, which seems quite as 
natural an etymon for the epithet of an arrow. Zuveyés ‘“‘con- 
tinually” has a long initial syllable in its two Homeric occurrences 
(Zl. xii. 26; Od. ix. 74). Schulze Quaestiones Epicae 178, uses 
this word and πάρόχει, Od. xix. 113, to prove that the lost initial 
a could still help make position. It is quite as likely that in 
συνεχές we have to do with digamma. | 

With more hesitation I would suggest a connection with réyw | 
for the group 0x7, ὀχεία “a covering, impregnation,” ὀχεῖον “male 
animal kept for breeding,” ὀχεύω “cover, impregnate,” etc., all used 
of animals exclusively, and also ὀχευτής (Anth. P. xi. 378") used 
figuratively of aman. Compare vulgar Eng. of U.S. to ride= 
“to cover” of animals, and Plautus Ps. 24. | 

Leo Meyer‘ suggests that the Homeric ἔχω “drive” should be 
read with digamma. Compare Skt. vdhati in the same sense. In 
five places,’ i. e., 28 per cent. of its eighteen occurrences, an initial 
consonant in this word would make the verse easier. Such is the 
case with ἔχω in other senses in less than 2 per cent. of its occur- 
rences,’ and with ὅπομαι, another verb which originally had initial 


1SGDI. 4416, 1. 9. 

3 According to Liddell and Scott. The books are not accessible to me. 
8 Liddell and Scott quote the word from Hesychius, but I cannot find it. 
4Handbuch der griechischen Etymologie I. 384. 

5 Il. v. 240, 829, 841, 752 = viii. 396. 

6 Kighteen out of a total of 948. 


440 E. H. Sturtevant 


o-, in 24 per cent. of its occurrences.’ The strongest evidence 
against Meyer's theory is the use of σχέμεν in the sense of “drive” 
in Il. viii. 254. 
εὔξατο Τυδείδαο πάρος σχέμεν ὠκῶς ἵππους. 

The line is open to suspicion on account οὗ πάρος, which must 
be construed as a preposition with Τυδείδαο, or, if the latter is 
governed by πρότερος in the preceding line, as an adverb of place 
meaning ‘“‘straight forth.” There is no Homeric parallel for 
either construction.” Perhaps we should substitute the tense stem 
that is seen in Cyprian ἔρεξε, and read προ(ρ)έξαι μώνυχας ἵππους. 
For the compound compare Latin proveho and Sanskrit pravdhati. 
This unfamiliar form was almost certain to be changed when 
once (ρ)έχω had been confused with éyw. At some later date a 
copyist who understood πρό as a preposition with the preceding 
genitive tried to improve the text by substituting πάρος, which 
was used in the poetry of his day as a postpositive πρός Thesub- 
stitution of ὠκέας ἵππους for μώνυχας ἵππους was due to the con- 
stant interchange of the two phrases according to the character of 
the preceding syllable. Compare, for example, ἔχε μώνυχας ἵππους 
in Il. v. 829, and ἔχον ὠκέας ἵππους in Il. v. 240. Any copyist 
familiar with the text of the poem would be likely to make the 
change. 


BARNARD COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 


1 Five out of 199. 

?QOompare the notes on the passage in the editions of Leaf and Monro. 

8Other examples of μώνυχας ἵππους after a vowel are found in 71. v. 236, 841, viii. 139, 
ri. 618, xvi. 712, xix. 424, xxiii. 398, 423. ὠκέας ἵππους follows a consonant (») in Zt. ili. 
263, xi. 760, xv. 259, xvii. 465, xxiii. 516. 


NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 


NOTE ON THE INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE TO THE EIGHTH 
BOOK OF CAESAR’S GALLIC WAR! 


In a Note which appeared in Classical Philology, Vol. II (p. 92) 
Professor Kelsey discusses a sentence of this letter, which he quotes as it 
probably appeared in the archetypal manuscript. 

Coactus adsiduis tuis vocibus, Balbe, cum cotidiana mea recusatio non 
difficultatis excusationem, sed inertiae videretur deprecationem habere, 
difficillimam rem suscepi: Caesaris nostri commentarios rerum gestarum 
Galliae non comparantibus superioribus atque insequentibus eius scriptis 
contexui novissimumque imperfectum ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci 


usque ad exitum non quidem civilis dissensionis, cuius finem nullum videmus, 
sed vitae Caesaria. 


The word comparantibus has been generally condemned as corrupt. 
Five emendations are enumerated by Mr. Kelsey, and there have been 
others. The emenders agree in their view of the meaning which the text 
originally conveyed. The seven books of the Gallic War and the three 
which recite the Civil War do not “fit on;” there is (to use the phrase 
by which Dr. Johnson defined a rent in a garment) “a cessation of con- 
tinuity.” Mr. Kelsey rejects all the emendations, on the ground that 
the required sense may just as easily be extracted from the reading of 
the archetype. He quotes Livy 40. 26: non possumus non vereri ne 
male comparati sitis, where male comparati means “unevenly matched 
together.” This application of comparare, derived from the gladiatorial 
arena, is of course common. But from male comparare to male com- 
parantibus in the letter of Hirtius, it is a far cry, grammatically speak- 
ing. Could Hirtius treat comparari so thoroughly as a deponent verb, 
that he could write the present participle with deponent meaning? The 
only common intransitive employment of comparare, in such phrases as 
sortirt aut comparare (less usually parare), cannot be made to yield 
any support to the text. Had the MS given comparatis, there would 
have been more to say in defense, and I thought at one time that this 
might be the true lection. But it now seems that, grammar apart, both 
comparantibus and comparatis are indefensible on the score of meaning. 
It is hardly likely that Hirtius would speak of the Gallic War and the 
Civil War as “badly matched” merely because the time covered by the 

1The emendation here offered was proposed in a letter to Professor Kelsey and 
this paper was written at his suggestion. 

441 


442 NoTes AND DISOUSSIONS 


one is not continuous with that covered by the other. Such an expres- 
sion would only apply to some inequality inherent in the works them- 
selves, such as their difference in style, or in length. 

We must look in another direction fora remedy. I think that Hirtius 
wrote non comparentes, that is to say “missing.” He treats the writings 
which would have to be added to the commentarii written by Caesar, as 
commentarit that were “missing.” The phrase non comparere is of 
frequent occurrence in good Latin. Of Romulus and other heroes who 
had vanished from human ken and joined the gods it is often said, non 
comparuit (ἠφανίσθη. Ovid Met. 6. 410 describes as non comparens 
pars, the shoulder of Pelops which was eaten at the banquet when the 
gods were guests, and was replaced by ivory. The emendation which I 
have suggested does not make it absolutely necessary to strike out the 
word Galliae, which has been almost unanimously rejected. Hirtius 
may first speak of his intended completion of the history of the Gallic 
War; then of the period from the outbreak of the Alexandrine War to the 
death of Caesar. But one difficulty remains. Why does Hirtius use the 
plural commentarios of Bell. Gall. viii, while the singular commentartum 
is applied (apparently) to the remainder of the records which he intended 
to compile? It is better, perhaps, to suppose that Galliae has intruded 
itself here from the title of MSS of the “Gallic War;” commentarios 
will then apply to the whole of the compositions taken in hand by Hirtius. 
In that case the words from novissimumque imperfectum onward give 
a description of the later of the two portions implied in commentarios. 
There is in these words, I believe, a slight ellipse. Hirtius means that 
he finished the book containing the Alexandrine War, and carried on 
the story (in other books) to the death of Caesar. The language used 
by Hirtius makes it certain that Caesar himself had begun an account 
of the struggle at Alexandria, and this renders it probable that he had 
contemplated the narration of all the events to which Hirtius addressed 
himself. This fact exhibits the phrase non comparentes as particularly 
appropriate. It can hardly be that any work of Caesar himself is 
included in the present Bellum Alexandrinum. Whether Hirtius ever 
accomplished his task or not we shall never know. The letter implies 
that he did, but it may have been sent to Balbus in advance for his 
approval. I agree with what seems now to be the genera] opinion, that 
Bell. Gall. viii is all that we have from the hand of Hirtius.' 

There is no actual need to justify the emendation which I have pro- 
posed, on paleographical grounds. I should not touch on that matter, 
had I not oftentimes seen scholars of high rank demanding justification 
of the commonest paleographical phenomena. Thus Kar] Lehmann, 

1The Bellum Hispaniense seems to be a rough soldier's report, prepared ag 


material for a literary man. Fora similar purpose, L. Verus demanded commentarios 
from provincia] commanders (Fronto, p. 131 Nab.). 


NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 448 


commenting on Cicero Ad Atticum xi. 21, finds the intrusion of que into 
a MS to be inexplicable; yet an indefinite number of examples may be 
adduced from the codices. I will therefore only say that assimilation of 
neighboring words such as I have assumed in the change from com- 
parentes to comparantibus under the influence of superioribus, is so 
usual that it is not possible to go very far in reading the evidence of MSS 
for any Latin text without coming across parallels. The weary eye of 
the copyist (often totally ignorant of the sense of what he was copying) 
failed to instruct his hand aright. Some examples of errors of this kind 
are collected by C. F. W. Mueller in a critical note on Cicero Fam. 4. ii. 1. 
I do not wish to traverse much farther the extensive range of prob- 
lems connected with the continuations of Caesar’s work, but I will deal 
with a few references or supposed references in later literature which 
seem capable of more precise interpretation than they have hitherto 
received. It is well known that Orosius, in lib. vi “Historiarum adversus 
paganos,” cc. 7-12, uses material derived from the eight books of the 
Gallic War, but assigns it to “Suetonius Tranquillus.” That he had 
the full text of the Bellum Gallicum before him is, judging from his ordi- 
nary methods, most improbable. There existed, therefore, some epitome 
by a writer who used a MS with a superscription somewhat resembling 
that in the Moissac codex and that in the Bongarsianus. That the attri- 
bution to Suetonius could ever have been made except as the consequence of 
some paleographical accident, seems incredible. It is a curious fact that 
Orosius, who certainly used the text of Suetonius’ biographies, never 
quotes from the biography of Julius Caesar. Zangemeister indeed sup- 
poses that in iii. 14. δ ἃ tale told of Caesar by Suetonius in ca. 87 of his 
life (and also by Plutarch Caes. b. 3) was transferred thence by Orosius 
and stuffed into the life of Alexander the Great. But the tale is one 
that was attached, in practically the same form, to many great names. 
Was the Epitome of the Bellum Gallicum substituted in the MS of 
Suetonius used by Orosius, for the biography of Iulius? If so, the 
appearance of Suetonius’ name in some MSS of the Gallic War itself, 
might have been due to transference and extension of the original title. 
Another interesting passage occurs in Apollinaris Sidonius Ep. 9. 14. 
' Writing to a young friend, he urges him to complete a promised eulogy 
of Caesar: “quae materia tam grandis est, ut studentum si quis fuerit ille 
copiosissimus, nihi] amplius in ipsa debeat cavere, quam ne quid minus 
dicat. Nam si omittantur quae de titulis dictatoris inuicti scripta Pata- 
vinis sunt voluminibus, quis opera Suetonii, quis Iuventii Martialis his- 
toriam, quisve ad extremum Balbi ephemeridem fando adaequaverit? ” 
It has been frequently supposed that by Suetonti opera is meant Bell. 
Gall. i-vii, and by Balbit ephemeridem, the eighth book, written by 
Hirtius at the request of Balbus. I cannot bring myself to believe that 
the bishop of Clermont, who was among the most distinguished “Gauls” 


| 444 Notes aND DISCUSSIONS 


of his time, who was learned and cultivated to a high degree for that 
age, and descended from high officials of the empire, can have been 
ignorant that the first seven books of the “Gallic War” were written by 
Caesar. Symmachus, who had Gaulish instructors, was under no illu- 
sion about the authorship. It is better to understand Suetonis opera as 
including the Life of Caesar, and the other writings in which Caesar was 
mentioned as litterateur and orator.' The “historia” of Iuventius Mar- 
tialis is completely unknown; it is pretty certain that he was a writer of 
later date than Suetonius. It is extraordinarily strange that Sidonius 
should now go back to literature before Livy and pick out Bell. Gall. 
viii as a specimen of brilliance in style. It is far more probable that Balbi 
ephemerts is some writing of a later period still, and nearer Sidonius’ own 
time. The name Balbi is not improbably corrupt. But considering the 
vast compass of the historical literature produced in the time of the 
empire, it would not be strange if some Balbus, born late in time, did 
treat the life of Caesar.’ It is at all events hardly credible that Sidonius 
should have indicated Bell. Gall. viii as good material for a rhetorical 
eulogy. Nor is the opinion which has been sometimes held that Caesar’s 
Balbus wrote a civil history of him, to which the completed military 
history would be an accompaniment, worth discussion. 

It will be noticed that Sidonius draws a sharp distinction between 
historia, a literary composition, following all the rules of rhetoric, and 
ephemeris, a biography in looser style, and in more annalistic form. In 
his excellent article “On the Title of Caesar's Work” (Transactions of 
the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXVI), Professor Kelsey 
suggests that the word ephemeris which occurs in the titles found in 
some MSS of Caesar’s writings may have been taken from ἐφημερίδες 
which Plutarch uses of them in ca. 22 of his life of Caesar, and that when 
Symmachus Ὁ. iv. 18. 5 mentions ephemeridem C. Caesaris, he obtained 
the description from a manuscript. But ἐφημερίδες had a long history in 
the Greek East before Plutarch’s time, in connection with loose records 
of the lives of royal and imperial rulers. For this see the article in Pauly- 
Wissowa, s. v. It was quite natural that Plutarch should employ the 
word to render Caesar’s commentarit. Similar records kept at the court 
of Augustus are described as commentarii diurni in Suet. Aug. 64, which 
passage shows that selections from them were published and formed a 
sort of “court circular.” But ephemeris (a Latin word) was applied to 
these records as early at least as the time of Severus Alexander, and also 


1 Sidonius in Ep. viii 1b, alludes to Caesar’s authorship and oratory and to Cicero’s 
praise of him, and elsewhere he shows interest in the great conqueror of his native 
Gaul. In Carm. 7. 152 there is a reference to Caesar’s fortunes at Gergovia and in 
Carm., 23. 15 to the siege of Massilia. Cf. also Ep. ii. 14. 1. 


2A contemporary, T. Ampius Balbus, attacked him in a historical work (Suet. 
Tul. 77). 


Nores aNp DIscussions 445 


to any imperial biography written after the fashion of Suetonius and the 
Scriptores Historiae Augustae.' The facts are given by Friedlander 
Sittengeschichte I°, pp. 176 ff., and Peter Geschichtliche Literatur δ 
die rémische Kaiserzett I, pp. 370 ff. 

The paucity of references in later Roman literature to the Bellum 
Civile has often been observed, and has indeed been made one ground 
for refusing to acknowledge Caesar’s authorship. Orosius knows nothing 
of the work. At first sight, a passage of Claudian, “de VI consulatu 
Honorii,” 1. 379, seems to imply that he was equally ignorant. It runs 


thus: 
cum Gallica vulgo 
Proelia iactaret, tacuit Pharsalica Caesar. 


But, if the context be carefully examined, it will be seen that there is no 
reference here to Caesar’s writings. The allusion is tothe Roman feeling 
(not on every occasion respected by Caesar) that a triumph should not 
be treated as having been won by a victory over fellow-citizens, 

The last passage to which I shall refer isin the commentary of 
Servius on Verg. Aen. xi. 748. A story is there told that Caesar was 
once torn from his horse by a Gaul, who was hurrying him along, when 
another Gaul met them, who knew Caesar, and shouted out his name in 
derision. But as caesar meant dimitte in the Gaulish tongue, his captor 
let Caesar go: “hoc autem ipse Caesar in ephemeride sua dicit, ubi pro- 
priam commemorat felicitatem.” Some scholars have supposed the tale 
to have been taken from the “ Balbi ephemeris” of Sidonius, imagined to 
be a work by L. Cornelius Balbus, the agent of Caesar. But the words 
of Servius do not fit in well with the supposition. The Romans were fond 
of noting resemblances between Roman names and words in barbarian 
dialects, and sometimes the resemblances gave rise to legends, such as 
that concerning the origin of the name Drusus, told by Suetonius 7'iber. 
C. 8. Servius himself on Aen. i. 286 recounts a story that the name 
Caesar attached itself to the family because the grandfather of the dicta- 
tor killed an elephant in Africa and the Punic for an elephant was caesa. 
There may well have been another legend making out the name to be 
Gaulish. I conjecture that some such story was told by Suetonius in 
the lost introductory chapters of his life of Iulius, and that he illustrated 
it by quoting from some autograph paper by Caesar himself the incident 
of his unexpected rescue. 

J. S. Rem 

GONVILLE AND Catus COLLEGE 

Cambridge 


1 Gellius v. 18. 8 quotes from Asellio the word diarium used by Sempronius Asellio 
to represent ἐφημερίς in the sense of a historical writing. But diarium took another 
turn in Latin. Varro (Non. 2. 22) was probably the first to employ ephemeris as 
Latin, but in another sense. 


446 Nores AND DISCUSSIONS 


CATULLUS LXIV, 382 ff. 


All editions of Catullus known to me punctuate lines 383, 384 amiss 
The sentences should surely be distributed thus: 


Talia praefantes quondam felicia Pelei 
carmina diuino cecinerunt pectore Parcae 
praesentes: namque ante domos inuisere castas 
heroum et sese mortali ostendere coetu 
caelicolae nondum gpreta pietate solebant. 


For the position of praesentes, with a pause in the same place of the 
verse, preceding namque, there is a close parallel in 289 where after 
confestim Peneus adest, etc., we have “non uacuos (nom.): namque 
ille tulit radicitus altas | fagos ac recto proceras stipite lauros.” We now 
get a proper nexus for the thought. At the marriage of Peleus and 
Thetis the Parcae chanted their song of destiny in visible presence on 
the spot. Sor it was then the Golden Age and Gods did not shrink from 


society of men. 
J. P. Postaate 


NOTE ON PLATO, REP. III. 387 C 


Plato Rep. iii. 887 C: οὐκοῦν ἔτι καὶ τὰ περὶ ταῦτα ὀνόματα πάντα τὰ Save 
τε καὶ φοβερὰ ἀποβλητέα, Kwxvrovs τε καὶ Στύγας καὶ ἐνέρους καὶ ἀλίβαντας, 
καὶ ἄλλα ὅσα τούτου τοῦ τύπου ὀνομαζόμενα φρίττειν δὴ ποιεῖ ὡς οἴεται πάντας 
τοὺς ἀκούοντας. 

ὡς οἴεται is the reading of all the best manuscripts. An interpolated 
manuscript of the fifteenth century, Bekker’s 4, has οἷόν re, which has 
become the vulgate reading. But the use of this phrase as a mere inten- 
sive expression is doubtful; see Adam’s note. Besides, οἷόν re is proba- 
bly only a corruption of οἴονται, which, in turn, is a clumsy attempt to 
adjust the puzzling οἴεται to the context. 

That ὡς οἴεται is sound cannot be maintained. To supply 6 ποιητής 
as subject involves too great a strain, and the meaning thus arrived at is 
flat; and surely nobody will think of ὅσα as subject, ὡς οἴεται is in fact 
generally abandoned as corrupt. Of the emendations οἰκέτας, ὅσα ἔτη, ὡς 
οἰητέα, ὡς ἐτέα, it is enough to say that not one has gained acceptance. 

A remedy that deserves mention, especially since it was adopted by 
Adan, is the suggestion of M. Hertz (Fleck. Jahrbb. CV, p. 852) that ὡς 
οἴεται Should be dropped from the text. In the judgment of Hertz and 
Adam, the words are a mere comment by some Christian reader, “as he’”’ 
(i.e., Plato) “thinks.” “The author of the gloss wished to indicate that 
he at least could hear such tales without shivering” (Adam). But it 
does not seem probable that a gloss so obviously out of harmony with 
the context could have established itself so firmly that it, or some cor- 
ruption of it, would be found in all the MSS. Besides, a passage in 


NoTEs AND DISCUSSIONS 447 


which the philosopher describes the demoralizing effect of pagan poetry 
upon pagan minds does not seem just the kind of thing to elicit unfavor 
able comment from a Christian reader. 

It is not improbable that Plato wrote πῶς ofa. This phrase, used 
parenthetically, is a lively colloquial equivalent for σφόδρα, λίαν, and may 
be rendered “you can’t imagine how much.” The examples are best col- 
lected by Blaydes, note on Acharnians 12; see also, however, Starkie, 
Crit. App. on Wasps 1428. πῶς δοκεῖς in the same sense is more frequent 
than πῶς οἴει, chiefly because of its use in the trimeters of the comic poets 
and of Euripides. The phrase may also be varied by using instead of 
πῶς some interrogative of size and quantity, as πόσος (cf. Ar. Eccl. 399), 
πηλίκος (Alciphr. iv. 13. 17 Schepers). The examples that may be most 
conveniently compared with our passage are Eur. Hec. 1160, Heracl. 
832, Hipp. 446, I. A. 1590, Ar. Ach. 12, Clouds 881, Plut. 742, Frogs 54, - 
Luc. Fug. 19, Nekyom.14. All of these have πῶς δοκεῖς except Ar. Frogs 
54, and the two cases in Lucian, which have πῶς oa. The passage in 
the Frogs, with its reference to strong emotion, is enough like ours to 
justify quoting it: πόθος | τὴν καρδίαν ἐπάταξε πῶς ola σφόδρα. Plato 
makes use of this idiom in a well-known passage of the Symposium, 
216 Ὁ: ἔνδοθεν δὲ ἀνοιχθεὶς πόσης οἴεσθε γέμει, ὦ ἄνδρες συμπόται, σωφροσύνης; 
so far as I know there is no other example in Plato; but ἃ tendency on 
the author’s part to use οἴει alone parenthetically had been long since 
remarked; cf. Heindorf on Theaet. 147 A. 

Assuming that πῶς οἴει was the original reading, it is probable that 
corruption began with the first word, the substitution of the relative 
adverb for the interrogative being a natural error; cf. Alciphr. loc. cit., 
where πηλίκαι δοκεῖς θριδακῖναι is Hercher’s correction for ἡλίκαι of all the 
MSS. The fact that ποιεῖ immediately precedes may also have some- 
thing to do with the loss of «. When the idiom had once been dis- 
guised and misunderstood, ole may have been purposely changed to the 
third person in an attempt to conform it to the context. In Theophr. 
Char. 8, there is an example of this idiom, πῶς οἴεσθε πιθανῶς σχετλιάζει 
λέγων, which has been needlessly abandoned by the Leipzig editors as 
hopelessly corrupt; and it is curious that certain early critics (Needham, 
Pauw), in their attempts to restore the text, offered ὡς οἴεται or ὡς οἴεσθαι 
—that is, just such a botch as now stands in the best MSS of the 
Republic. 


CaMPBELL BONNER 
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 


EMENDATIONS OF THEMISTIUS’ PARAPHRASE 
OF ARISTOTLE’S PHYSICS 


I have not thought it worth while to discuss manuscript-readings or 
to support these emendations by extended argument. They mostly 


448 Notes AND DISOUSSIONS 


restore what seems the necessary sense by very slight changes in text or 
punctuation. The majority are I think certain. Some may be only 
plausible or possible.! 

Schenk] 25. 20: σύνθετον γάρ ἐστι τὸ ὕδωρ ἐκ τε τοῦ ὑπομένοντος καὶ TOU 
᾿ ἀντικειμένου τῷ εἴδει τῷ ἐνυπάρχοντι μέλλοντος ἀέρος γενήσεσθαι. We must 
read τῷ ἐνυπάρχειν (or ἐνυπάρξειν) μέλλοντι ἀέρος γενομένου. Cf. 28.7 σύνθε- 
τον ἦν & τε τοῦ ὑποκειμένου καὶ τοῦ ἀντικειμένον τῷ ἐσομένφῳ. 

89. 1: τὸ εἶδος ἂν εἴη ἡ φύσις. εἰ δὲ οὐχ ὡς σχῆμα οὐδὲ ὡς εὐειδὲς ἐλέγομεν, 
etc. Read φύσις, d γε. . . . λέγομεν. 

The meaning is that form is φύσις provided we do not take form in 
the sense of physical shape. 

40. 2: οὕτως οὖν καὶ τὸ φνόμενον ἡνίκα φύεσθαι λέγεις, ἐπειδὴ ds φύσιν 
ἔρχεται φύεσθαι λέγεις - ἐπειδὴ καὶ οὐκ ἀπὸ φύσεως μέν, ἔρχεται δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ εἶδος, 
ὥστε καὶ οὕτως τὸ εἶδος φύσις. Read καὶ οὐκ ἐπειδὴ ἀπὸ φύσεως. ἔρχεται δὲ 
(autem), etc. See Diels Simplic. Phys. 279. 6: ἐπειδὴ εἰς φύσιν ἔρχεται, 
λέγεται φύεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὅτι ἀπὸ φύσεως. ἔρχεται δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ εἶδος - τὸ εἶδος 
ἄρα ἡ φύσις. 

93. 24: οὐ γὰρ παντός ἐστιν μεῖζον, οἷον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνου δυνατοῦ 
μόνον, ὁ τὴν αὔξησιν εἶχεν, etc. Read δυνατὸν (se. εἶναι μεῖζον). 

97. 81: ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ οὐδὲν κωλύει πλάτει μήκει κεχρῆσθαι καὶ ἀδιαστάτῳ 
σημείῳ. Read ἀπλατέῖ μήκει. Cf. Sext. Empir. 210. 23, Bekker, ἀπλατὲς 
μῆκος; Lucian Hermotim. 74. 

98. 4: οὐ yap φυσικόν ἐστι μῆκος ἅπαν τὸ ὃ δεῖται καὶ φύσει τόπον, ἀλλὰ 
μαθηματικόν, οὗ τόπος ἡ τοῦ θεωροῦντος διάνοια. Read ὃ πάντως δεῖται, etc. 

122. 29: οὕτω μὲν οὖν ἐφεξῆς ἡμῖν ἐστιν ὁ Adyos. Read οὗτος. 

125. 25: καὶ τοῦτο δὲ αὐτῶν παριᾶσιν. ὅμως, etc. Read παριεῖσι, ὅμως, etc. 

182. 17: ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ. Read κέι. 

133.9: omit δὲς 11: for ταῦτα read ταὐτὰ Cf. Simplic. 679. 13. 

133. 24: αὐλητῶν 9 σαλπίγγων. Read σαλπιγκτῶν. 

133. 29: εἰ σῶμα ἕτερον ἐκβιάσαιο. Read ἐμβιάσαιο. 

134. 81: ἀδύνατον ἄρα καὶ σῶμα ἐν κενῷ εἶναι - ὄγκον μὲν γὰρ ἐν ὄγκῳ ποιεῖ 
τὸ σῶμα ἐν κενῷ, ποῖον δὲ σῶμα ἐν σώματι ὄγκον ἐν ὄγκῳ; The last clause is 
meaningless. The argument should run: There is no void because 
matter in void means matter in matter. For matter in void=bulk in 
bulk. And (since, as explained above, it is only the bulk and not the 
secondary qualities that prevent two portions of matter from occupying 
the same place) bulk in bulk is equivalent to matter in matter. We 
must therefore read: mod δὲ σῶμα ἐν σώματι ὄγκος ἐν ὄγκῳ, or perhaps, 
ποιόν (for ποῖον) δὲ σῶμα, etc. 

168. 1: ὅπερ ἡμετέρα ἐπίνοια καὶ θεωρία τοῦ ἐν τοῖς διαφέρουσιν ὁμοίως. 
Read dpotov. Cf. An. Post. Spengel, p. 101. 8: ἡ τοῦ ὁμοίον θεωρία τε καὶ 
διάκρισις. 


1Cf. Classical Review, Vol. X, p. 328; Classical Philology, Vol. I, p. 81. 


Nores AND DISOUSsSIONS 449 


181.7: καὶ γάρ τινι περιττεύει μέρει τοῦ ἐσχάτου τούτου τὰ ἀμερῆϊσυντιθέ. 

. Read καὶ γὰρ trim .... 

197. 2: λέγω δὲ νῦν ἀθρόως οὐχ ὡς καθόλου τὰ μόρια μόνον, ete. Read 
καθ᾽ ὅλα and μόνον or ἅμα. Cf. 192.3 and 192.18: ἀλλοιοῖτο ἂν ἅμα καθ᾽ 
ὅλα τὰ μέρη. 

211. 8: εἰ γὰρ τῶν μὲν οἷόν τε ὄντων κινεῖσθαι τῶν δὲ οἷόν τε ὄντων κινεῖν. 
Read οἵων τε ὄντων. 

211. 10: 6 τι δ᾽ ἂν τούτων ὑπόθῃ. Read with Simplicius (1128. 28), 

211. 15: εἴπερ οὖν, ἵνα τῆς πρώτης ἄρξηται κινήσεως, προτέρας κινήσεως 
δεῖται ταῦτα, ὑπομένει καὶ οὗτος ὁ λόγος. Read ταὐτὰ ὑπομένει καὶ οὕτως. 

There are many other passages in which a closer consideration of the 
thought would alter either the text or the punctuation. But the illus- 
trations given are perhaps sufficient. 

Paut SHorry 


BOOK REVIEWS 


Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus. Von 
WILHELM WEBER. Mit 8 Abbildungen. Leipzig: B. G. 
Teubner, 1907. Pp. viii+288. M. 8. 


Weber dedicates his book to his teacher, Professor von Domaszewski, 
whose influence and teaching are manifest throughout the work. In his 
preface he emphasizes that this is primarily a historical investigation, 
not a source study, yet he often touches on the question of sources and 
sometimes makes new and good deductions from the evidence he has 
gathered. The thorough way in which inscriptions, coins, etc., have 
been made use of is most praiseworthy. In this respect Weber’s work is 
a silent criticism on his predecessors, Schultz and Kornemann, for he 
shows how much evidence they overlooked which might have a bearing 
on the difficult problems of source. Yet not infrequently this striving 
for absolute completeness has led to the introduction of material which 
only by the boldest hypothesis can be connected with the subject under 
discussion. This is, however, a fault easily forgiven, as Weber seldom 
bases any conclusions on such evidence alone. 

The work is divided into four chapters. Chapter i, “The New 
Emperor,” deals mostly with the question of the adoption of Hadrian 
by Trajan. One feels, after reading this, that almost the last word has 
now been said on the subject, and we still do not know whether the 
empress Plotina persuaded Trajan in his last moments to adopt her 
favorite, or failing in this, falsely asserted that the adoption took place. 

Chapter ii covers the period from the accession to Hadrian’s arrival 
in Rome. Weber’s work here is not only better but more productive. 
Particularly commendable is the citation, on p. 49, of Epictetus Diss. 
iii. 13. 9, regarding the “Peace-Emperor” and the conclusion that the 
exposition was indebted to Hadrian’s announcement of the policy of his 
reign. Still more keen is the author’s comment (n. 172) on the well- 
balanced style and accurate statement of the Vita 5.2. It is a good 
argument for the existence and ability of Kornemann’s last great his- 
torian of Rome. Pages 54 to 82 contain a very thorough discussion of 
the date and circumstances of the return, in which Weber arrives at the 
result, that Hadrian started his return trip in 117 a. p. but did not reach 
Rome till July 9, 118 (a new date in place of August 7-8, formerly 
accepted). 

450 


Boox REvIEWws 451 


Chapter ii deals with the first great journey (121-26 a.p.). Weber 
makes extensive use of coins for the purpose of settling the order in 
which the various provinces were visited. There can be no question that 
he has added to our knowledge of Hadrian’s movements, though in some 
places, notably p. 99, his handling of the coins is not clear, if indeed it 
be sound. The results of the chapter may be summed up in a list of the 
provinces in the order visited with dates added. Gaul (121 a. p.), Ger- 
many, Noricum, Britain (122), Gaul, Spain, Libya, Parthia (123), Asia 
Minor, Islands, Thrace (124), Moesia, Dacia, Macedonia, Thessaly, 
Athens (125), Peloponnesus, Athens, Delphi, Dodona, Sicily, Rome. 

Chapter iv treats of the residence in Italy (125-28 a. p.) and of the 
second journey (128-34 a. p.). The same method is employed; inscrip- 
tions and especially coins are used to support and interpret the state- 
ments of the historians. Dates and succession of provinces visited are 
as follows: Africa (128), Numidia, Mauretania, Rome, Athens (129), 
Asia Minor, Cilicia, Syria, Arabia, Palestine, Palmyra, Jerusalem (130), 
Arabia, Egypt, Upper Egypt, Alexandria (131), Syria, Pontos, Athens 
(182), war in Judaea (133-34), Rome (134). 

This very interesting book closes with a chronological table of the 
events from 117 to 134 a. p. and indices of names, places, inscriptions, 
and papyri. Itis tobe regretted that the author did not extend the same 
minute care to the proofreading which is manifest in the investigation. 
Misprints are rather frequent, but false citations are a graver fault. I 
found far too many, though I made no attempt to verify all. In some 
cases inscriptions or coins cited accurately in one passage are given 
inaccurately in another. It is apparent that the author did not verify his 


references after the paper was in proof. 
Henry A. SANDERS 
UnIvErsitTy or MICHIGAN 


Ancient Italy: Historical and Geographical Investigations in 
Central Italy, Magna Graecia, Sicily, and Sardinia. By 
ETTORE Pals; translated from the Italian by C. DENsMORE 
Curtis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1908. 
$5.00. 

Chiefly through his Storia di Roma the author of the present volume 

is already well known to scholars, who recognize that no one has ever 80 

minutely analyzed the sources for early Rome or has brought to the task 

more profound knowledge or a keener intelligence. While we may often 
dissent from his interpretations and may refuse to follow him to the 
extremes of his destructive criticism, we owe unqualified respect to his 
pre-eminent learning and ability. The twenty-six papers incorporated 
in this volume originally appeared at various times either in the periodicals 


452 Boox REVIEWS 


of learned societies or in separate pamphlets for private distribution, and 
have therefore come before a limited public. The range of subjects in- 
cluded may be illustrated by the following titles: “The Alliance between 
Rhegium and Tarentum against the Iapygians,” “The Legend of Euthy- 
mus of Locri,” “The Origin of Siris,” “The Archaic Greek Relief and the 
Ancient Cities of the Heraean Plateau,” “The Daunians and Umbrians of 
Campania,” “Concerning the Early History of Ischia,” “The Temple of the 
Sirens near Sorrento,” and “Concerning the time and Place in Which 
Strabo Composed His Historical Geography.” 

The character of these researches can perhaps better be shown by an 
examination of one or two papers than by general remarks concerning the 
entire work. In a chapter on “Siceliot Elements in the Earliest History 
of Rome,” the author, after calling attention to the fact that Rome was 
in close touch with Syracuse from 474 B. ο. at the latest, proceeds to point 
out remarkable similarities in the internal history of these two cities in 
the period immediately following that date. He establishes beyond a 
doubt that the Sicilian historians, beginning with Antiochus, were the 
first Greek writers to take an interest in Roman affairs, and concludes 
that the resemblance is due partly to actual imitation but in the main to 
falsifications perpetrated by these historians in their endeavor to make 
the story of Rome read like that of their own country. While it may 
readily be conceded to our author that Antiochus thus falsified the begin- 
nings of Rome, it is hard to believe that he similarly misrepresented his 
own age. The circumstance that a Sicilian historian who lived in the 
fifth century treated of Roman affairs, and in greater detail than has 
usually been supposed (p. 240), ought to increase our faith in the tradi- 
tional history of Rome during that century. On the principle above 
mentioned the author attempts to explain the striking parallel between 
the seditions of Gela and Syracuse on the one hand and the alleged first 
secession of the plebs on the other. As the date 494 does not fit this 
theory, he rejects the first secession as a mere anticipation of the second, 
which he considers genuine and which he places at the time assigned it by 
the annalists. The view is attractive; but the doubter might ask whether 
no sedition worthy of imitation occurred in any western Greek state 
before 494, and many other puzzling questions. Too much importance 
should not be attached to such parallels. As Greek seditions must 
generally have had much in common, we should not look for absolute 
novelty in those of Rome. The tribune of the plebs may, as Pais sug- 
gests, have been an imitation of some Greek official, but could not have 
been identical with the προστάτης τοῦ δήμου at Corcyra and Syracuse 
(Thuc. iii. 75; iv. 46; vi. 35). The latter was simply a political leader of 
the commons, whereas, if we may trust our sources, the tribunes from the 
beginning were recognized by the state as in a restricted sense officials. 
The treatment of political institutions in this chapter, though not wholly 


Boox ReEvirews 453 


satisfactory, is in a high degree suggestive and helpful. Even more 
stimulating is the chapter on “Italiot, Samnite, and Campanian Elements 
in the Earliest History of Rome,” in which he sets forth the cultural 
relations of Rome with other peoples of Italy, and indicates various lines 
of research along which scholars will doubtless be able to make further 
contributions to the subject. In general the tendency of these studies is 
to free Rome from the isolation in which from Niebuhr to Mommesen her 
history has been studied, and to exhibit her as an Italian community 
living in close political, commercial, and general cultural relations with 
her neighbors both native and Greek. Notwithstanding some incon- 
sistencies and an occasional mistake, the work certainly adds new interest 
as well as fresh knowledge to early Italian and Sicilian history. 

The volume is made attractive in appearance by the excellent type 
and illustrations; but the translator in his effort to be faithful has often 
done violence to the English language. 


Grorce Wiis Borsrorp 
CotumB1a UNIVERSITY 


Life in the Homeric Age. By Tuomas Day Seymour. New 
York: Macmillan. Pp. 704. $4.00 net. 


Amid the universal feeling of regret caused by the untimely death of 
Professor Seymour there is at least this element of consolation, that he 
was spared long enough to give to the world an enduring monument of 
his painstaking scholarship and life-long devotion to the study and 
interpretation of Homer. 

1116 in the Homeric Age is a large volume of some seven hundred 
pages including a bibliography, a fairly complete index, maps, illustra- 
tions, and excellent views, handsomely bound and beautifully printed — 
a book to delight the eye and tempt the genera] reader. It is, however, 
too much in the form of a manual of Homeric antiquities to be readable 
as a whole, and will therefore be serviceable mainly for occasional study 
and reference. It covers, less exhaustively, the same general ground as 
the three elaborate volumes of Buchholz Die homerischen Realien, but 
is a work of independent research carried out with eyes open to the prog- 
ress in Homeric study, especially the vast amount of archaeological 
evidence which has been brought to bear on Homeric problems, since 
Buchholz wrote. However, the author treats archaeological questions 
only incidentally, indicating briefly here and there their significance in 
connection with the philological study of the poems. His point of view 
is philological, not archaeological. “From the poet’s language he has 
attempted to discover what was before the poet’s mind.” 

Those who hope for definite pronouncements on disputed points of 
Homeric controversy will be somewhat disappointed. Such questions 


454 Boox . REVIEWS 


are but lightly touched in a very readable introduction. The problem of 
the origin of the Homeric poems is raised only that the author may make 
a clear statement of his view, assumed throughout the book, that the 
Iliad and the Odyssey present in the main a consistent and trustworthy 
picture of the life of a single age. He believes in a modified form of the 
development theory but not in the original multiplicity of distinct lays. 
The poems were “in a manner ‘sung to pieces’ rather than composed 
separately and stitched together.” Different strata, no doubt, exist in 
the epics. ‘Some parts of them may have been two or even three cen- 
turies older than others,” but as yet attempts to determine the limits of 
the old and the new have not been successful, mainly because the 
archaeological and philological tests point to embarrassingly inharmo- 
nious conclusions. A large part of the introductory chapter is occupied 
with a lucid argument to prove that “Homer was not an archaeologist,” 
which Homeric students will find more convincing than Andrew Lang’s 
more diffuse treatment of the same question in his recent volume, Homer 
and His Age. The poet sings of a time somewhat remote, but reflects 
the customs, ideas, and life of his own day. He was entirely unembar- 
rassed by the purely modern insistence on accurate historical reconstruc- 
tion or “local color.” 

The chapter on Homeric “Cosmography and Geography” is, naturally, 
more up to date than the corresponding account of Buchholz. Here, as 
elsewhere, the author shows his sane and conservative judgment. He 
prefers to wander vaguely with Homer in “No Man’s Land,” rather than 
accept the too definite guidance of the ingenious M. Bérard or his under- 
study, M. Champault. He discusses at some length Dr. Ddrpfeld’s 
identification of Homeric Ithaca with modern Leucas and appears to 
accept his view, though with Homeric inconsistency he ignores it later 
(see p. 94). A chapter on the Troad, which would properly follow this, 
is one of the most useful in the book. Details are here collected from 
scattered and not easily accessible sources into a clear and interesting 
account of the topography of the Troad, the disputes regarding the site 
of Ancient Ilium, the history of the excavations conducted by Schliemann 
and Dorpfeld on Hissarlik and the discovery of the well-walled “sixth 
city” now generally held to be the ruins of Homeric Troy. 

Other divisions of the book take up various phases of Homeric life 
from “Animals, Fishes, Birds and Insects” to “Olympus and the 
Gods.” In most cases the subjects are brought before the reader 
with great wealth of citations together with appropriate and sensible 
comments. The plan of making the poet speak for himself as much as 
possible, which is admirable in its way, produces occasionally a monot- 
onous catalogue effect which might have been avoided in some degree 
by the use of illuminating summary and generalization. The author’s 
conservatism in the matter of generalizing and his caution in guarding 


Boox REvVIEWSs 455 


against overstatement result, now and then, in a negative impression 
which is somewhat misleading. One illustration of this is the comment 
he makes on the gloomy words of Achilles’ wraith in the eleventh Odyssey . 
“Tf the proud Achilles would rather serve on earth than reign in Hades, 
doubtless the ordinary man expected to gain nothing by death.” To 
most readers, Buchholz’s statement that the Homeric picture of the 
phantom abode of men outworn is “duich und durch pessimistisch” 
seems mild enough. Nor is any account taken in the book of the shadow 
of melancholy cast by this dread prospect over the living. On the con- 
trary, “Homer is buoyantly optimistic.” “The Homeric Greeks take a 
wholesome, cheerful view of life.” The numerous pessimistic reflections 
in the poems are explained away on one ground or another, leaving no 
dark cloud to trouble the serene Homeric sky. 

“Lack of uniformity in the extension of the original plan” as the 
book grew in the hands of the author probably accounts for a manifest 
disproportion in the treatment of some subjects as compared with others. 
Recent interest in the discussion of Homeric “War and Arms” may 
justify a hundred and twenty-four pages devoted to them, but nine pages 
on “Ethics,” loosely appended to the chapter on “Olympus and the 
Gods,” and seven pages on “Psychology,” relegated to the end of the 
chapter on “Hades and His Realm” are disappointingly inadequate. 
In the brief digest of Homeric ethics, little or no mention is made of 
such cardinal words as θέμις, αἰδώς, ὕβρις, νέμεσις, ἄτη. The author perhaps 
contented himself with a summary review of these subjects because they 
are so thoroughly handled in Buchholz’s third volume, but his compara- 
tive neglect of them is to be regretted because in most working libraries 
Life in the Homeric Age will doubtless supersede former handbooks of 
Homeric antiquities. 

Grorar Noriin 

THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO 


Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, auctoritate et 
impensis Academiae Inscriptionum et Litterarum Humani- 
orum collectae et editae. Paris: Leroux. Each fase. ca. 
Fr. 2. : 


The first seven fasciculi of this important collection of late Greek 
inscriptions were reviewed in Vol. I, pp. 193 f., of this Journal. In 1906 
two further instalments appeared, viz., Tom. I, fasc. iv, containing the 
inscriptions of Samothrace; Sarmatia, Bosporus; Mauretania, Numidia, 
Africa; Creta et Cyrenaica (Nos. 843 to 1042); and Tom. III, fasc. v, 
containing addenda et corrigenda to the preceding four parts of this 
volume with two indices of the personal names and cognomina found in 
Vol. III. It is to be regretted that with the names in the former index 


456 Book REvIEws 


an indication was not added of the capacity in which the person appears 
in the documents. 

Apart from signalizing the progress of this publication, which is not 
so rapid as one might desire, we need only note here the scholarly care 
which the French editors, under the direction of M. Cagnat, continue to 
bestow upon their work and the value which the collection already has 
for all students of the affairs of the Greeks under the Roman Empire. 


Epwarp Capps 
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 


Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar. By T. Rick 
Hotmes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. Pp. xvi + 764. 
$ 6.00. | 


This extensive volume, like the author’s Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul 
(1899), is characterized by thoroughness of detail and a clear presentation 
and careful weighing of facts; it is, moreover, written in a most attractive 
and entertaining style. The portion dealing with early Britain and its 
prehistoric inhabitants is a valuable supplement to the works of Scarth, 
Evans, and Beddoe, while upon most of the vexed questions connected 
with the two expeditions of Caesar into Britain this book is a final and 
authoritative publication, superseding such treatises as those of Vine, 
Lewis, and Appach. 

Like the Cuesar’s Conquest of Gaul also the contents of this book 
are presented in two parts. The first part contains the narrative and 
descriptive portion, while the consideration of the difficult or controversial 
questions is relegated to the second part. The first half gives a careful 
summary of the discoveries of remains which bear on prehistoric man in 
Britain and a discussion of the significance of such discoveries. There is 
a chapter on the “Palaeolithic Age,” one on the “Neolithic Age,” one on 
the “Bronze Age and the Voyage of Pytheas,” and finally a chapter on 
the “Early Iron Age.” A thorough familiarity with our sources of know]- 
edge of early man and of the methods employed in interpreting the 
remains is requisite to review intelligently this part of Dr. Holmes’s book, 
but even a cursory reading will show that a painstaking effort has been 
made to secure every scrap of available evidence, that the handling of this 
evidence is judicious, and that the conclusions based upon it are sound. 
Moreover, convincing logic is enlivened by a fascinating literary style; 
these two features constitute the chief characteristics of the author’s 
writing. Part I includes also separate chapters on Caesar’s first and 
second invasions and one on the results of these invasions, the history of 
Britain being sketched through the reign of Caligula. 

The consideration of much-discussed questions in connection with the 
whole subject is taken up, as has been said, in the latter half of the book: 


Boox ReEvIEws 457 


Only a few matters may be noticed here. Several pages are devoted to an 
attempt toidentify the Cassiterides or“‘Tin Islands,” mentioned by Diodorus 
Siculus, Strabo, Pliny, and others. Dr. Holmes concludes that the name 
was originally applied to the British Isles and then afterward misapplied 
to imaginary islands off the coast of Spain. A most interesting section 
- follows on the British trade in tin in antiquity. Next the author studies 
the configuration of the coast of Kent in Caesar’s time; the results of this 
study have an important bearing on the question of Caesar’s landing-place. 
That theme and the difficult problem of the identification of Portus Itius 
(Bell, Gall. v.2.3,5.1), are subjected to a minute inquiry and these questions 
which Mommsen declared could never be settled are satisfactorily dis- 
posed of — it is to be hoped, for all time. The entire evidence has never 
before been scrutinized so closely and the results justify the assertion of 
Holmes in his Preface that these ‘questions would have been settled long 
ago if any competent writer had bestowed upon them as much care as has 
been expended in investigating Hannibal’s passage over the Alps.” To 
be brief, Holmes establishes that Caesar sailed on both his first and second 
expeditions from Portus Itius, and that Portus Itius is to be identified 
with the modern Boulogne. The portus ulterior (Bell. Gall. iv. 23. 1) 
was at Ambleteuse. The place of Caesar’s landing in Britain is dis- 
cussed at length in a series of essays that occupy seventy pages and no 
evidence is left untouched that affords any means of ascertaining the 
truth. Moreover, the sources are cited in footnotes so that the reader may 
judge for himself whether the writer’s deductions are justified. The con- 
clusion reached (and every fair-minded reader must confess it is sound) 
is that both in 55 Β. o. and δά s. o. Caesar landed in East Kent, in the 
former year between Walmer Castle and Deal Castle and in the latter 
year north of Deal Castle. The question of the tides holds a prominent 
place in the discussion. The date of the landing in 55 Β. o. cannot be 
fixed with absolute certainty, but it was probably on August 26; Caesar’s 
language, however, allows the possibility of its having been the 27th or 
even the 25th of that month. Interesting excursuses follow on the mili- 
tary operations of Caesar and the Britons, including an account of the 
war-chariots. Dr. Holmes shows that no one can prove conclusively where 
Caesar crossed the Thames notwithstanding more can be said perhaps in 
favor of Brentford, nor can we say what was the site of Cassivellaunus’ 
stronghold although greater probability favors Verulam just west of St. 
Albans. The conjecture of Lewin that the oppidum of Cassivellaunus 
was no other than London is interesting but it is not convincing because 
we cannot say absolutely that Londinium, though it is a Celtic name, 
existed at the time of Caesar’s invasions. The earliest mention of London 
is in the Annals of Tacitus (xiv. 33). The volume is closed with a long 
chapter on the Julian Calendar. 

For the preparation of his two exhaustive volumes on Caesar in Gaul 


458 Boox REVIEWS 


and Britain Dr. Holmes will have the gratitude not only of scientifi 
students of the subject but also of all secondary-school teachers for whom 
these books will be a constant guide and inspiration. 
Watter DENNISON 
University oF MICHIGAN 


Die Modificirung der Maske in der griechischen Tragddie. Von 
Orto HEnsE, 2te Aufl. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 
1905. Pp. vi+38. Μ. 2.40. 

Professor Hense has performed a service to all students of the drama 
by making this revision of his study of the mask accessible to a wider 
public. Starting with the assumption that every actor in the classical 
Greek drama wore on the stage a mask that completely covered the 
features, he has gathered all the instances in the texts of the extant 
plays where there is indication of a change of expression, and endeavored 
to show how the poet, fully conscious of the limitations placed upon 
him by the burdensome convention of the mask, managed, whenever he 
could, either to hide the face whose expression was supposed to change, 
or to explain by some artificial motive why the face retained its former 
expression. Because of the mask, poets regularly avoided scenes of 
murder, suicide, blinding, etc., or brought to a sudden conclusion scenes 
where the mask of fixed expression would be incongruous or caused 
actors to depart hastily. The chorus was also frequently so arranged as 
to conceal the actor’s face. In the Humenides the priestess creeps out 
of the temple for a similar reason. 

While we must acknowledge that Hense uses great ingenuity in 
trying to show how the ancient poets made a virtue, sometimes by undra- 
matic and inartistic means, of the cruel necessity which the full mask 
imposed, we must say that he frequently fails to convince. For he 
strives to show a connection between the use of the mask and many con- 
ventions of the stage which would never be thought of as related, con- 
ventions which are readily explainable on other grounds. And besides, 
80 many instances, some of which the author mentions, could be cited in 
which strong emotion and sudden changes of feeling are represented 
with no apparent appreciation of the difficulty of the mask, that we are 
inclined to accept more natural explanations for the other cases. That 
a tragic poet, at the very climax of dramatic action should be compelled 
to make his leading character turn his back or get behind the chorus or 
bolt for the exit is quite inconsistent with the principles of art which 
governed tragedy. Why did not Aristotle, who would have felt no 
scruple to criticize a convention supposed to be close to religion, utter no 
word of protest? Why did not the comic poets parody it? 

In one instance it seems to us that Hense, in his zeal to explain 
everything possible by means of the mask, is led into a peculiar incon- 


Boox REVIEWS 459 


sistency. In speaking of the creeping of the priestess in the Humenides, 
he remarks that she was old and that the old have a more fixed expres- 
sion anyway than the young—una senum facies. But if, in view of her 
age, the spectators were satisfied with the fixed expression of her face, 
what becomes of Hense’s explanation that the poet represented her as 
creeping to withdraw her features? 

Is there, after all, sufficient evidence, applicable to the fifth century, 
for such a mask as Hense accepts? A careful reader of this monograph 
will receive a great deal of instruction, but one can hardly refrain from 
expressing, with Professor Capps, the hope, and the belief, that a special 
inquiry into the subject from a different point of view will result in a 
conclusion for the full-faced mask similar to that which has already been 
reached in regard to the high-heeled cothurnus; that the evidence for its 
use in the classical period is far from conclusive, and that the evidence 
of the plays themselves is a very strong argument against its use. 


F. L. Hurson 
THe University or CHICAGO 


Giuseppe Modugno. 1] concetto della vita nella Filosofia greca. 
Bitonto: N. Garofalo, 1907. Edizione fuori commercio. 
Pp. xv+535. 


This is a pleasantly written survey of the history of Greek thought 
from the point of view apparently of scientific positivism. It will serve 
as an admirable introduction to the subject for cultivated Italian readers, 
but is hardly rich enough in details of precise scholarship to appeal to 
the international tribunal of scholars. Professor Modugno writes agree- 
ably but somewhat broadly and vaguely on the problems of life, the 
transition from cosmogony to philosophy, the Greek religion, the Greek 
genius, and the influence of Greek philosophy on the modern world. 
His chapters on Plato and Aristotle are fair and sane in a conventional 
way. The concluding general summary is excellent. His chief modern 


authorities are Zeller, Croiset, and Huit. 
Paut SHoREY 


Die Kultur der Gegenwart. Teil I, Abteilung VIII: ‘Die 
griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache.” Von 
U. v. WirLamMow1Tz-MoELLENDORFF, K. KRUMBACHER, J. 
WAcCKERNAGEL, FR. Leo, E. Norpen, F. Sxursox. 2te 
Aufl. Berlin und Leipzig: Teubner, 1907. Pp. viii+494. 

M. 12. 
Only sixty pages were allotted to Leo for his “Roman Literature of 
Antiquity” in the first edition of this work. This was relatively too 
little space. It was not much more than that given to the Roman period 


460 Book REvIEWws 


alone (30 8. o. to 300 a. pv.) of Wilamowitz’s “Greek Literature of 
Antiquity,” and his entire section covered 236 pages, or more than half 
of the book. The complaint of the shortness of Leo’s treatise seems to 
have been the chief cause of the publication, in less than two years, of a 
second edition of “The Greek and Latin Literature and Language,” 
although only seven other volumes of Hinneberg’s mammoth work of 
perhaps fifty volumes have as yet reached their first edition. Leo’s sec- 
tion has now been increased by one-third of its former length, while less 
than a page on an average has been added to the work of the other con- 
tributors. 

The changes in Wilamowitz’s part, e. g., pp. 70, 237, are very slight; 
it is virtually an “unchanged reprint of the first edition,” as the general 
editor says. Krumbacher and Skutsch have inserted here and there a 
new sentence or a short paragraph, Norden has rewritten his article on 
St. Jerome, and both he and Wackernagel have made slight additions 
and modifications in their sections, but these changes are for the most 
part small and inconsiderable. Leo alone has made noteworthy addi- 
tions. He has extended his articles on most of the writers, especially 
Ennius, Lucilius, Sallust, Tibullus, Propertius, and Petronius, and there 
are also new paragraphs on the annalists and Coelius Antipater, the tragic 
poet Accius, the deep and abiding influence of Posidonius upon Roman 
literature, the subordination of poetry to oratory and the practice of 
extemporizing verses as readily as speeches in late imperial times, the 
passing of the intellectual primacy from Rome and Italy to the provinces, 
and, finally, the literature of translations from the Greek. Furthermore, 
the introduction is much expanded and enlarged, and the retrospect is 
entirely new. In the former, Leo shows that the Latinizing of Italy was 
begun in the army, and accomplished through the intellectual superiority 
of the Romans, before they in turn yielded to Hellenic influence from 
contact with the Greek cities of the coast; and that their neighbors, the 
Etruscans, who had previously had close relations with the Greeks and 
imbibed their culture, brought their own civilization, permeated as it 
was with the Greek, into early Roman life, which bears traces of large 
Etruscan influence. He discusses also the Roman national character, 
and in the retrospect maintains that, however dependent on the Greek, 
the Roman literature is not merely an imitation, but that when once the 
types of literature had been fixed by the Greeks, later Greek writers were 
just as dependent on the great models of the past as the Romans were 
afterward, and that modern literatures, though farther removed in time, 
likewise show Greek influence. 

The saying, “Wenn die Kunst sinkt, so steigt die Wissenschaft,” 
which was applied to Hadrian’s time in the first edition, has been omitted. 
The omissions, however, have been few, but the additions many. 

Emory CoLiEGE Cuartes W. ῬΕΡΡΙΕΒ 


Boox ReEviEws 461 


Platon und die Aristotelische Poetik. Von GrorG FINSLER. 
Leipzig: M. Spirgatis, 1900. Pp. 252. M. 6. 


This study was published in 1900. But as it has been sent to this 
Journal for review and is an excellent piece of work it may not be too 
late to say a word of its merits and indicate a few points on which dis- 
sent is permissible. The principle that the best commentary on any 
work of Aristotle is an exposition of its relations to Plato, long recog- 
nized in theory, is gradually being applied in practice. What Burnet’s 
admirably succinct commentary does for the Ethics, Finsler attempts in 
a different way for the Poetics. He shows how its ideas are develop- 
ments or supplements, or conscious contradictions of the ideas of Plato, 
and how its very phrasing is colored by the passages of the Republic, 
Gorgias, Phaedo, and Laws, dealing with the theme. 

Much of his exposition of Aristotle’s definition of tragedy is for Eng- 
lish readers anticipated by Butcher. To the central problem of κάθαρσις 
he devotes pp. 67-134. Aristotle’s doctrine, he holds, is a defense of 
poetry against Plato by means of a development of Plato’s own concep- 
tion of the homeopathic cure of motion and emotion by themselves as 
illustrated in exercise, dancing, and the orgiastic music of the Cory- 
bants (Laws 790 Ὁ). To physical exercise Plato in one late passage 
(Tim. 89 A) gives the name κάθαρσις in the sense not apparently of pur- 
gation but of restoration of the natural order and harmony of the body. 
The aptest translation of Aristotle’s κάθαρσις then is Goethe’s “ Ausglei- 
chung.” Aristotle extends this special Platonic sense of the word to 
fear and pity, excluding all other emotions by definition from the proper 
effect of tragedy. 

This interpretation is worked out with much ingenuity and scholar- 
ship, and my only criticism of it is that it pins down both Plato and 
Aristotle to a greater precision of thought and language than the subject 
allows or it is probable that they consciously intended. As Butcher 
points out, the genitive with κάθαρσις may refer either to the thing 
purged away or the person or thing on which the purgation operates. 
And the effect of the purgation may be conceived (1) literally as the mere 
relief caused by the alleviating discharge, (2) as a sort of religious lustra- 
tion, (3) as a moral or aesthetic purification and refinement. All these 
meanings may have been present to the minds of Plato and Aristotle, and 
we have no evidence that enables us to confine them to one with inten- 
tional exclusion of the others. The merely medical purgation is so inti- 
mately associated with the restoration of the health and harmony of 
bodily functions that it is impossible to keep the two meanings distinct. 
Plato undoubtedly, both in the Laws and the Timaeus speaks of exer- 
cise as not only the best natural cathartic but as directly calming and 
quieting irregular and unhealthy internal movements. The language of 


462 Boox REvIEws 


the Timaeus passage is further colored by the comparison with the uni- 
verse, to which purgation proper cannot apply (88 E). But the phrase 
τὰς τῶν σίτων τροφὰς Kal ποτῶν κατακρατοῦντα in the Laws 789 D, and the 
comparison with τὸ τῆς φαρμακευτικῆς καθάρσεως in Timaeus 89 B, show 
that the idea of separation or excretion predominant in Sophist 226-27 
is not far ‘from Plato’s mind, and forbid our attributing to him in the 
Timaeus passage a new and special meaning of the word. The same 
physical connotation is apparent in Aristotle’s κουφίζεσθαι pe? ἡδονῆς. 
Farther than this we cannot go. But modern interpreters will always 
try to go farther. They will either insist with the vigor and rigor of Ber- 
nays that medical purgation, and that only, is meant, or they will follow 
the natural instinct of poets and literary critics to dwell rather on the 
resultant effects of purification and refinement. As Finsler himself says, 
critics have always read their own theory of poetry into the Aristotelian 
formula. Those for whom poetry is a safety-valve for latent unsatisfied 
sensibilities will insist on the purgation; and they have this in their favor 
that it constitutes the most direct and effective reply to Plato’s objection 
in Republic 606 B that poetry fosters ἰσχυρὸν τὸ ἐλεεινὸν. Those who prefer 
to think of poetry as spiritualizing and elevating feeling will emphasize 
rather the indirect after-effects of the purgation. Of these with a differ- 
ence is Butcher, who takes the κάθαρσις to be the refining away from pity 
and fear of the alloy of personal reference which they have in real life. 
The majority of modern poet-critics from Milton to Browning blend both 
ideas. 

We have really no means of determining whether Aristotle con- 
sciously defined in either sense his vague' metaphor as physical allevia- 
tion or spiritual purification, or whether, like the majority of modern 
interpreters, he wavered between both ideas unable to renounce either. 
The literature of the κάθαρσις question will therefore continue to grow. 

There are many other points that it would be interesting to discuss 
with Dr. Finsler—his rejection of the Jon, his assumption that the 
Phaedrus represents a less mature stage of Plato’s thought than the 
Republic, his statement that Aristotle in the introduction to the Meta- 
physics (981 a 26) contradicting Plato (Rep. x. 601 A) attributes to the 
true “Kiinstler” knowledge of the concepts and causes of the things that 
he portrays, which surely is a confusion of the τεχνίτης or scientific 
craftsman of whom Aristotle is speaking with the artist in the aesthetic 
sense. But the time is past for a complete and formal review of his 
book, and I mcrely wish to call attention to it again as one to which 
every student of the subject will assign an honorable place on the shelf 


that holds Butcher and Vahlen. 
Paut SHoREY 


1 κάθαρσίν τινα. Butcher I think errs in refering this τινα explicitly to the distinc- 
tion between tragic and orgiastic κάθαρσις. 


Book REviEws 468 


Xenophon’s Hellenica. Text by E. C. ΜΑΒΟΗΑΝΤ; notes by G. 
E. UNDERHILL. Clarendon Press. 1906. $2.50. 


The text and commentary here combined were published separately 
in 1900. There is no change in the present issue. The text utilizes 
papyri fragments, published in 1898, containing portions of i. 2, 2-5, 8 and 
iii. 1, 3-7. The variants in the papyri are noted in full, and frequently 
incorporated in the text; they are unimportant. Marchant also uses for 
the first time a collation of cod. Britannicus 5110 made by himself, and 
one of Book vii from cod. Palatinus 140. These sources also contain 
little of importance. In other respects the text is not deserving of notice. 
It is exceedingly conservative, and the critical notes are scanty, though 
well enough selected. 

Underhill’s commentary is an excellent piece of work. On the histori- 
cal side it is very complete and shows thorough acquaintance with the 
latest discussions of difficult points. The notes, indeed, are much too 
full for the class of students that we are accustomed to have reading 
Xenophon, but no teacher of the Hellenica should be without this 
valuable book of reference. In addition to 309 pages of notes there is 
an interesting introduction of 88 pages discussing the composition and 
chronology of the Hellenica, and the MSS and editions; it contains 
also a very useful chronological summary. In the appendix are dis- 
cussed at length a number of historical questions connected with the 
period covered by the Hellenica, such as the political history of Athens 
in 411-404 8. o., and the constitutions of Sparta and Thebes. 

A. 6. Lairp 


Ancient Sinope. An Historical Account with a Prosopographia 
Sinopensis and an Appendix of Inscriptions. By Davip M. 
Rosinson. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1906. 
Pp. 104. 


Under this title Dr. Robinson publishes his Chicago doctoral disser- 
tation, which appeared in two numbers of the American Journal of 
Philology, Vol. XXVII, together with the inscriptions from Sinope 
which he collected and published in the American Journal of Archae- 
ology, Vol. IX. The result of the compilation is a very interesting and 
useful monograph giving as complete a picture of the life of this impor- 
tant Black Sea colony as may be had at the present day. The addition 
of all known Sinopean inscriptions, and the names of all known citizens 
of Sinope was a happy thought, as it puts in one’s hands all the obtainable 
information about the city and that in a single volume. 

For criticisms and suggested corrections of the new inscriptions pub- 
lished by Robinson the reviewer refers to the article by Van Buren in 


464 Boox REeEvIEws 


the American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. X, p. 294. In the same 
volume (p. 429) Robinson maintains the exactness of his copies against 
Van Buren’s charge that they are inaccurately copied, and defends his 
restorations successfully. It is singular that this accusation of inexact 
copying should be so boldly made by one who had not seen the inscrip- 
tions in question. This is all the more true because Robinson’s work 
leaves the distinct impression of careful and painstaking scholarship. 
The controversy may, however, be decided on its merits by anyone 
interested by referring to the articles cited above. 

The first half of the monograph is of much greater general interest. 
In brief chapters the author describes the physical character and the 
advantages of the site of Sinope, its commerce, the tradition of its 
founding, and its subsequent history. The story of its political life is 
indeed a broken one. The material for reconstructing it consists of bits 
of information, gleaned here and there from Greek literature, supported 
by meager inscriptional evidence and what may be learned from the 
coins. In gathering this evidence Robinson has read widely and with 
care. The results are more satisfactory upon the later period, the time 
of Pontic and Roman rule, than on the earlier Greek period. This is of 
course due to the nature of the evidence at hand. 

For the same reason the constitution of Sinope still remains a blank. 
The author has been able, however, to give us reliable and valuable infor- 
mation upon the business life and commercial activities of the city. An 
extended visit, spent in a thorough study of the locality, has put Robin- 
son in a position to speak with authority upon its situation, the products 
of the country-side, and the exports from its busy harbors. Indeed, the 
first three chapters of the monograph, upon the city’s site and commerce, 
appeal to me as the most valuable part of a work which is throughout 
distinctly meritorious. The information contained therein has already 
been practically useful to the reviewer in classroom work. The author’s 
attempt, in chap. ix, to picture the intellectual side of Sinopean life is 
clever but unconvincing. It is difficult to find and depict any single 
type which will characterize the intellectual temper of any cosmopolitan 
city, especially if that city be centuries dead and gone and has left but a 
few fragments and echoes of the work of its master minds. Robinson 
has tried, so far as the historical result of this chapter goes, to build 
a sky-scraper out of cobwebs. 

A criticism must also be made upon the author’s English. The style 
is clear and good except where an attempt is made to be picturesque. 
Then the result is poor rhetoric, and sentences result which would be 
Titanic were they not so Teutonic. Of several examples I quote but one: 

But the individual courage, amounting to recklessness, which made 
Diogenes ask Alexander to get from between him and the sun, the casting 
aside of the wooden bow! after he saw the lad drink from the hollow of his 


Boox REVIEWS 465 


hand, the reduction of his living quarters to a pithos, together with the 
coarse fun of the comic poets, perpetually directed against the irksome em- 
barrassments of the parasitic temper, which cannot live from its own resources 
but eats the bread of belittling dependence upon the wealthy, may serve to 
reflect that ready individual courage of man against man, that cheerful 
acceptance of hardships in matters of food and shelter, and especially that 
rough humor and biting scorn of everything soft and effeminate, which is 
continually putting itself in evidence all along the line of adventurous 
colonial life (p. 259). 


On p. 255, in a rhetorical passage, we read that Pompey “viewed the 
body with emotion and averted eye.” This suggests strabismus in 
Pompey, and it surely deserves a smile. Aside from this criticism upon 
its rhetoric, the monograph is a first-class special study in Greek history. 
It is the kind of work we need done in this country, of the sort that will 
help to gain for the study of ancient history that respect which it must 
yet attain in American universities. 


W. L. WesTERMANN 
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 


Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain. Conférences 
faites au Collage de France par Franz Cumont. Paris; 
Leroux 1907. Pp. xxii+333. 


The content of eight special lectures delivered by M.Cumont is here 
printed as Vol. XXIV of the Annales du Musée Guimet, Bibliotheque de 
Vulgarisation. Its purpose is to put the world at largein possession of 
the vital facts and conclusions drawn from the study of the oriental reli- 
gions in their relation to Roman religion, and consequently to the civili- 
zation of ourowntime. Lest, however, any eruditissimus Americanorum 
take fright at the word vulgarisation, it should besaid that M. Cumont’s 
chapters are characterized by his usual thoroughness and solidity, and 
that he has added to the 254 pp. of his text 80 pp. of notes for the use of 
the specialist. 

In the preface M. Cumont declares his concern to be with the influence 
of orientalism upon Roman paganism alone. Roman territory, into 
which Christianity came already a well-developed religion, is not the 
place to begin the study of the mutual influences of Christianity and the 
oriental faiths. The proper field for this is Asia Minor, among the 
Judaeo-pagan communities where the new religion had its inception. 
Chap. i, “Rome et l’orient, les sources” :—We are reminded that the East, 
not then as now decadent, was a realm of culture and wealth, and that 
the coming of the oriental religions was only a single feature of a general 
orientalization of Rome, of which the orientalization of the court of 
Diocletian was one other sign. Chap. ii, “Pourquoi les cultes orientaux 
se sont propagés”:—The spread of the oriental religions was due to merit. 


466 Book ReEvIEws 


In contrast to the cold and formal religions of Rome the oriental faiths, 
with their hoary traditions and basis of science and culture, their fine 
ceremonial, the excitement attending on their mysteries, their deities 
with hearts of compassion, their cultivation of the social bond, their 
appeal to conscience and their promises of purification and reward in a 
future life, were personal rather than civic, and satisfied the individual 
soul. Chap. iii, “L’Asie mineure”:—The first breach in the old system, 
made by the Great Mother, was really an accident due to Roman obeerv- 
ance of the Sibylline oracles. Her cult facilitated the coming of other 
eastern religions, and finally, with them, formed the foremost faiths of 
Rome. The strange Cybele-Attis rites, fully practiced first under 
Claudius, were, like other rites of like nature, the tradition of barbarous 
times; the firm hold they acquired is explained by the fact that they 
underwent a deep spiritualization. Chap. iv, “L’Egypte”:—The cult of 
Isis owed its final success to the ideality of which its doctrines were cap- 
able, and to its adaptability: to its growth in purity and spirituality; to 
the charm of its ritual; to the sympathetic nature of its deities, and to 
the satisfaction afforded by its promises of eternal participation in the 
divine life. Chap. v, “La Syrie”:—The Semitic conception made the 
distance between deity and man greater than was the case with other 
religions; their Baal was universal and all-powerful, protected all races, 
and ruled over all the spaces of nature as the Most High, deathless and 
eternal. Being also a solar deity, it was only necessary to isolate him 
from this world to make him the Christian God. Chap. vi, “La Perse”: 
—The great feature of the Persian religion was dualism—the existence 
of Good and Evil. Attaching supreme importance to the principles 
of truth, loyalty, justice, fraternity, and purity, promising salvation, 
Mithraism satisfied both those who were looking for religious novelty 
and those who stood for the old school of Roman society. Chap. vii, 
“TAstrologie et la magie”:—The decay of the oracle, of divination, and 
the critical spirit made possible the success of astrology, which, with 
magic, came in the train of the oriental religions. Its teaching of the 
cosmic year and the coming destruction of the world by fire and flood 
suggests the Christian belief regarding the end of the world. Magic was 
degenerate physics, as astrology was perverted astronomy, and the 
essential doctrine of both was the solidarity of the universe and the 
sympathy of matter and spirit. Astrology determined cosmic influences, 
magic attempted to nullify them. Both were scientific in being founded 
upon observation of nature, but derived their strength from being after 
all faiths. Chap. viii, “La transformation du paganisme romain” :— 
The mass of religions at Rome finally became so impregnated by neo- 
Platonism and orientalism that paganism may be called a single religion 
with a fairly distinct theology, whose doctrines were somewhat as follows: 
adoration of the elements, especially the cosmic bodies; the reign of 


Boox REVIEWS 467 


one God, eterna] and omnipotent, with messenger attendants; spiritual 
interpretation of the gross rites yet surviving from primitive times; assur- 
ance of eternal felicity to the faithful; belief that the soul was on earth 
to be proved before its fina] return to the universal spirit; the existence 
of an abysmal abode for the evil, against whom the faithful must keep 
up an unceasing struggle; the destruction of the universe, the death of 
the wicked, and the eternal happiness of the good in a reconstructed 
world. With such a conception of latter-day paganism, we may more 
easily understand its strength and the bitter rivalry between it and the 
new faith, as well as the facility with which pagan society, once its cause 
was proved hopeless, turned to Christianity. The religion of Symmachus 
resembled the Christian faith far more than it resembled the paganism 
of Augustus. 

No one is better qualified than the author of the Mysteries of Mithras 
to render an account of the subject of oriental religion; for in doing this 
he is writing of activities quorum pars magna fuit. These lectures are 
not compilations, nor mere reviews of progress; they are full of M. 
Cumont’s own contributions, and almost every page bears testimony to 
his originality and keenness of vision — for he is always felicissime audax. 
It is in its main conclusions, however, not in its details, that the great 
importance of the work lies; it is not a mere assemblage of evidence for 
the use of the comparatively few who are students of ancient religion. 
It is much more. It isa work for society at large—one of the kind whose 
conclusions are vital and really enter into life, one of the kind which 
afford a signal justification of the laborious accumulation and ordering 
of the infinity of details, in themselves petty and insignificant, which 
compose the foundation of fact for the beautiful structure of appreciation. 
It is to be hoped that an English translation will soon appear. 


Grant SHOWERMAN 
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 


Die ttalischen Rundbauten. Eine archaeologische Studie von 
WALTER ALTMANN. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhand- 
lung, 1906. Pp.101. M. 5. 


The circular structure of classical antiquity has always appealed with 
special force to artists and architects, and the discovery of the primitive 
. round building in the Terramare and elsewhere in comparatively recent 
times has excited the interest of students in its history. In the present 
monograph the author undertakes to show that the circular structure was 
originally the prevailing form throughout Europe, and that it passed 
through an entirely independent course of development. This develop- 
ment in Italy he treats in three periods—the prehistoric, the historical 
down to the end of the republic, and the imperial. 


468 Book REVIEWS 


In the first period the original round form gave way very largely to 
the rectangular in the case of dwellings, on account of the frequent 
necessity of connecting the adjacent houses of settlements. In spite, 
however, of this rectangular form of dwellings, as illustrated in the 
Etruscan hut, the circular structure continued an uninterrupted existence, 
and in the historical period the round temple appears as a native posses- 
sion of the Italian cults. In working out his thesis the author discusses 
all the round buildings for which we have any archaeological evidence, 
thus giving us a very convenient manual of the subject, properly indexed. 
During the empire the Romans continued to employ the round structure, 
partly as an independent form, the result of the tendency to perpetuate 
what had been consecrated from antiquity, and partly as an ordinary 
architectural element. These motives cannot always be differentiated, 
but they combined to produce such wonderful results as the Pantheon 
and the mausoleums of the emperors. ; 

The work is carefully done, is clear in statement, and has already 
made a place for itself in the literature of the subject. 

SamMvueL Batt Piatner 


INDEX TO VOLUME III 


ac, growth of use of in history 804; 
before a vowel 806 

accent, in Latin 98 ff., 101; hovering 
42: of word-group 88, 41, 58 

delpw, αἴρω, and ἄρνυμαι 81 ff.; αἴρω and 
delpw from different roots 81; sema- 
siology of 82 ff.; lexicography of 
85; Jebb on 86 

Aelian Περὶ Ζῴων viii. 1. 5 emended 
101 

Aeschylus Agam. 217, interpretation 
of 144; Eumenides, Blass’s edition 
of 848 

Agrippa, his mission to the Orient in 
23 Β. c. 145 ff., its real object to 
negotiate return of standards of 
Crassus in exchange for the son of 
Phraates 161 

Alcinous Elcaywy}, emendations of 
97 

Alciphron ii. 7. 2 880 

Alexander, Ausfeld on the Greek 
Romance of 849 

altars, Roman sepulchral, Altmann 
on 228 

Anaximenes 868 

Anthology, Greek, Mackail’s select 
epigrams from 209 | 

Ara Martis 66 ff. 

architecture, Italian circular struc- 
ture 467 

archons, Athenian 886 ff. 

Arion, τραγικοῦ τρόπου ebpérns; 282; 
mentioned by Solon 282 

Aristophanes, language of parody in 
218; The Frogs, Tucker's edition 
214; Lysistrata 628 260 

Aristotle, political thought of 211; 
Poetics, Finsler on 461 

Art Institute of Chicago, catalog of 
868 

Artemidorus Ontrocr. ii. 25 880 


assemblies, Roman, horns used in con- 
voking 887 ff. 

atque, comparison of its use with that 
of ac 804; before a consonant 806; 
before non 808 


Bodleian Library, MS of Notitia in 
190 ff. 

Britain, Caesar’s invasion of ancient, 
Holmes on 456 


Caesar, date of his commentaries on 
the civil war 129 f.; not written be- 
fore June 46 B. c. 186; his travels 
in Africa 181; must have visited 
Utica 185; his landing in Britain 
457; B.G. viii intr. epist., note on 
440 ff., references in later litera- 
ture to 448 ff.; Bell. Civ., references 
in later literature to 445 

calendar, Athenian 886 ff. 

Catullus, the MSS of, collations of, 
made for Professor W. G. Hale 
288 ff.; a preliminary list of 286 ff., 
relations of 284, 244 ff.; relations 
of G, R, and M, 244 ff.; the titles of 
G, R, and M, 246 ff.; owners of O, 
G, and R, 248 ff.; lxvi. 75 ff. inter- 
preted and emended 257 ff.; cxiii 
interpreted 260 ff.; Ixiv. 382 ff. 446 

choliambic verse 889 

chronicles, Greek, before Hellanicus 
282 

chronology of Athenian archons 886 
ff.; of early Rome 816; myths about 
founding of Rome 81%, approxi- 
mate date 820; list of Alban kings 
821; reliability of Roman consular 
lists 828, origin and extent of errors 
in 825; chronology of Cincius 827; 
republic at Rome, when founded 
829 


469 


470 


Chrysostum, De sacerdotio, ed. Nairn 
868 

Cicero Pro Cluent., transposition 
variants in 205 ff.; De senectute, a 
new MS of 285 ff. 

classical philology, science of 869 ff. 

cooks, their réle in Greek life, Rankin 
on 219 

correlatives of si, adverbs 178, abla- 
tives 178 

Crypta Balbi, situation of 855 


Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, Bon- 
durant on 212 

declension, Latin, Meillet on, 862 

dein and deinde, relative frequency of 
the use of each by Livy 805 

Demosthenes and Anaximenes, Nit- 
sche on 858 . 

Dialexeis 6.1 emended 198 

dicasts, how addressed 171 

drama, Greek, unity of time in 281; 
origin of 282; Johannes Diaconus 
on 282; realism in, see Pegasus; 
changes of scene in 848; masks in, 
Hense on 458 


Enoplios, Herkenrath on 860 

ephemeris, meaning of 444 

etymologies, Greek 74 ff.; ἁρπάζω 74: 
ἄῤῥατος 74. ἀρτοκόπος 486 ff.; δάκτυλος 
14 f.; δημοκόπος 488; δόλος 75; ἐπί- 
σταμαι 76; ἔποχος 489; ἔποχον 489; 
ἐχεπευκές 489; ἔχω 489 f.; εέχω 488 
ff.; κίδαφος 76; κίραφος 76; -κόπος 486 
ff.; κτύπος 48 f.; μάρη 76; μέοδει 76; 
μένω 70 £.; νιφόκτυπος 485; ὀλυροκόπος 
486 ff.; ὀμβρόκτνυπος 485; ὅρμος 77: 
ὀχεῖα 489; ὀχεῖον 489; ὀχευτής 489. 
ὀχεύω 489; ὀχή 489: πάροχος 489. 
πέτρα 77 f.; πολιτοκοπέω 488, n. 1: 
πορνοκόπος 488; ῥέθος 78; σέβομαι 78; 
σκολόπαξ 78; σῶμα 78 f.; συνέποχος 
439; συνεχές 489; φείδομαι 79; φοιτάω 
79; φύγεθλον 79 ἴ.; χάρις 80 f.; yor 
δροκοπεῖον 487 f. 
Gothic, gaswogjan 486; swégnjan 

436 

Icelandic, arnsugr 486 


InpEx to Votume III 


Latin 74 ff.; colostra 81; dissipo 
485; febris 81; gratia 80 f.; im- 
portunus 81 f.; lapit 82; Mattyo- 
coptae 487; medulla 82; melior 
82; mora 88; olor 88; rancens 88 
f.; sarcio 84; sardare 84; sarpio 
74; severus 84 f.; supo 485; tem- 
pus ‘temple’ 85; tongere 86 ἢ; 
verus 85 

Lithuanian szikti 486 

Old English, swégan 486 

Sanskrit, ksanti 486 

Kuripides, Wecklein’s Electra and 

Orestes 218; fr. Pirithous emended 

226, n. 2; Melan. 11, 16, 19 emended 

226; the Stheneboea 225 ff., plot of 

reconstructed 228, date of, earlier 

than Bellerophon 229 

evidence, not reduced to writing at 
time of Plato’s Apology 178; in 

Plato’s Apology 172 


Ficoroni cista, Behn on 222 


γάρ, meaning of 185 ff,, not assevera- 
tive originally in wishes, but con- 
firming or motivating 188; this 
force becomes obscure in later 
writers and ydp ceases to be used 
in wish formulae 142 ff. 

Greek history, Busolt’s 857 

Greek literature, history of, Wilamo- 
witz-Moellendorff 459; Wright 217 


Hadrian, Weber on the history of 
450; dates of his journeys 451 

Hephaestion, scholia on, xv. 8 
emended 199 

Herodotus 6. 91. 92 101 

Hexameter, Latin, word-group accent 
in 89 ff.; pyrrhic words in fifth the- 
sis of 48 ff.; spondaic words in 
fourth foot of, rules for 50 ff.; iam- 
bic word in second and third foot of 
54; hexameters in prose 90 

Hibeh papyri, finding of 858 

Historia Augusta, the MSS of 272 ff- 

history, Italian, Pais’s Ancient Italy 
451; Greek, Busolt’s 857 


InDEXx TO ΟΙΜΕ III 


ὁ αὐτός, used pronominally in Plato 
184 (Ὁ, 198 

Homer, interpretation of 11. xviii. 284 
ff., 98 ff.; of Od. xix. 308 ff. 91, of 
xvi. 206 ff. 91; Seymour’s Life in 
the Homeric Age 458 ff. 


imperative, Livy’s use of with neque 
or neve 802 ff. 

inscriptions, spurious Latin 22 ff.; 
geographical distribution 22 f.; 
development of the art of forgery 
28 -f.; discussion of critical prin- 
ciples 24%f.; famous forgers 25 ff.; 
their stylistic peculiarities 28 f.; 
famous spurious inscriptions 29 f.; 
Olcott’s Thesaurus of Latin 228; 
Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes 
(Cagnat) 455; see 888, n. 1 

Italy, ancient, Pais’s history of 451 ff. 


Juvenal i. 7-9 interpreted 840 ff. 


κάθαρσις 461 f. 
κοινή, source of 861 


Latin accent and the Latin gram- 
marians, 201 ff., 208 

Latin literature, history of, Leo and 
Norden 459 

library, Bodleian, MS of Notttia in 
190; Cornell University, new MS of 
Cic. De senec. in 285 ff. 

Literature, Greek, history of, Wilamo- 
witz-Moellendorff 459, Wright 217; 
Latin, history of, Leo and Norden, 
459 

Livy v. 8. 8-9 182; use of neque and 
neve with an imperative or sub- 
junctive 808 ff. 

Lucilius Fr. 605 interpreted 887 

Lysias, on the Cripple, compared with 
Plato’s Apology 175; Lysias, 
Adams’ selections from 219 


manuscripts, see Catullus, Cicero, 
Historia Augusta, Notitia 

Martial ix. 70. 6, 10 emended 262 f. 

Menander, notes on new fragments of 
199, 884 ff. 


471 


meter, choliambic verse 889; Eno- 
plios 860; see hexameter, Sophocles, 
accent 

Metonic cycle 890 

Monumentum Ancyranum, notes on 
87 f.; Greek translation of modified 
for provincials 90 


ne—aut—at, Livy’s use of 814; ne— 
neve in Livy 810, 818; ne—neque, 
ibid. 

nec, before a vowel 806; increase in 
the use of 804; and neque, in 
poetry 809, notes; following ne 
818, and ut 810 

neu and neve, Livy’s use of 802 ff.; 
neu before a vowel 806; neve before 
a consonant 806, and non 808 

Notitia, Bodleian MS of 190 ff. 


October horse, sacrifice of 69 ff. 
Ovid Fasti ii. 860 69, 72; iv. 209 in- 
terpreted 842 


palm of victory 264 ff.; first appear- 
ance of, in Greek art about 400 B. c. 
265; perhaps first instituted at 
Delos 267; not used for crowns 
268 f.; Pausanias viii. 48 in error or 
corrupt 268 

papyri, Greek, Mayser’s grammar of 
861 

papyri, the Hibeh 858 

parody, language of in Aristophanes, 
Hope on 218 

Pegasus represented by real horse not 
wooden image in Euripides’ Sthene- 
boea 229 

Peloponnesian war, Busolt’s history 
of 857 | 

philosophy, Greek, Modugno on 459 

phonetics, comparative, Passy on 862 

Plato Apology, legal setting of 169; 
not a verbatim report of Socrates’ 
speech tbid. ; use of evidence in 172; 
Rep. 397 B interpreted 188 ff.; Phi- 
lebus 11 B, C interpreted 848; 
Menexenus, Shawyer’s edition of 
859; Rep. iii. 387 C emended 446; 


472 


and Aristotle, political thought of, 
Barker on, 211; and Aristotle’s 
Poetics, Finsler on 461 

Portus Itius identified with Boulogne 
457 

πρὸς τὴν αὐτήν, meaning of in Plat. 
Rep. 397 B 188 ff. 


quin, derivation of 409 
Quintilian, Radermacher’s text of 846 


religions, the oriental, in Roman 
paganism, Cumont on 466 f. 

Rome, topography of, Ara Martis 65 
ff.; Campus Equiriorum 70f.; Cico- 
niae Nixae 70; Equiria 68; Porta 
Fontinalis 66 ff.; Saepta 68; Tri- 
garium 70; Jordan’s topography of 
855; early Rome, chronology of 
816 ff. 


Scopas and Praxiteles, Collignon 867 

sculpture, Greek, Lermann’s 866 

seals, Attic, the uses of 899 ff.; public 
401; on wills 402, of witnesses, of 
sureties 405; sub-seals 406 

semantics of modal! constructions 1 

Seneca, tragedies of, Miller’s transla- 
tion of 868 ff. 

seu before a vowel 806; its use com- 
pared with that of sive 802 


Seymour, Thomas Day, obituary 
notice of 196 
Simplicius De caelo, ed. Heiberg 


emendations of 845 

Sinope, ancient, Robinson's treatise 
on 468 ff. 

sive before a consonant 806 

solar year 892 

Solon, his reference to Arion 282 

Sophocles, Schroeder’s meters of 864 

Statius Thebais x. 827 ff. interpreted 
260 

Stheneboea of Euripides 225 ff.; as 
wife of Proetus perhaps first in 
Euripides 280 

subjunctive, Livy’s use of neque and 
neve with 802 ff.; basic conceptions 
of 17 


INDEX To VoLuME III 


substantive si-clauses 179 
Suetonius, Ihm’s text of 850 
syntax, Greek, use of article in the 
predicate 844: double use of εἶναι 
844 
Latin, parataxis 18; subjunctive of 
obligation and propriety 1 ἢ; 
prescriptive subjunctive 7; origin 
of quin-clauses 408 ff.; quin in 
declarative sentences tbid.; quin 
with imperative 411; quin in 
questions 412 ff.; quin-clauses 
417 ff. 


tabula Sestia, a tablet inscribed with 
the Licinian law 284 
tabula Valeria 278 ff.; a table of the 
Valerio-Horatian law at the station 
of the tribune 280 f. 
Tacitus Annal. i.11181; ibid. i. 28.1 
96 
text criticism, Greek, Aeclian Περὶ ζῴων 
viii. 1. 5 emended 101; Alcinous 
Elcaywyr, emendations of 97; Alci- 
phron ii. 7. 2 880; Artemidorus 
Onirocr. ii. 25 880; Dialexeis 6.1 
198; scholia on Hephaestion xv. 8 
199; Eurip. Melan. 11, 16, 19 226; 
fr. Pirithous 226, n. 2; Menander 
Epitrepontes 358, 359, 460 199; 
Περικειρομένη 39-46 200; Pausanias 
viii. 48 268; Plato Rep. ii. 387 C 
446, Simplicius De caelo 84a; 
Suidas ii. 1. 1234 (Bernhardy) 8382; 
Themistius’ paraphrase of Aris- 
totle’s Physics 447 ff.; Tiberius 
Περὶ σχημάτων, Spengel Vol. III, p. 
65, 1. 29 198 
Latin, Caes. B. G. vi. 30. 4 205; 
ibid. viii intr. 441, comparentes 
for comparantibus 442; Catul- 
lus Ixiv. 382 ff. 446; ibid. lxvi 
75 ff. 257; Martial ix. 70. 6, 10 
262 f.; Ovid Fasti iv. 209 842; 
Tacitus Ann. i. 28. 1 96 
Tiberius Περὶ σχημάτων, Spengel, Vol. 
IIT, p. 65, 1. 29 emended 198 


INDEx To VoLuME III 


topography, Roman, 841; 
Balbi 855; see Rome 

Trajan, his character, modesty of 61; 
epithet “ wallpellitory ” invented by 
Constantine 68; did not erase 
names of predecessors from their 
buildings 68 

ut followed by neve or neque in Livy 
810 f. 


Valerius Flaccus, Renkema’s obser- 
vations on 847 


Crypta 


473 


varia 198, 880 ff. 

Varro, Menippean satire Fr. 57 in- 
terpreted 889 

Virgil, the Dido episode in, DeWitt 
on reviewed 221 


Warren, Minton, 
197 


obituary notice 


Xenophon Hellenica ed. Marchant 
and Underhill 468 


Ninny 


3 6105 OOb 740 boy 


University Libraries 
Stan ας ΘΟ California 


Return this book on or before date due. 


ἘΠ: